Swipe, Show, & Smile

Final Reflection

2009-12-06T15:56:00.000-08:00

It's the end of the semester. It feels like we just arrived at AU a few weeks ago yet we're gonna be home by next week! =) I realised over the Thanksgiving Break that my friendships here have become really special to me. The first night away from college over the break, I really missed my loungemates (you know who you are) as well as everyone else on the floor. It's amazing how quickly we can bond with others and how the relationships have developed over time. We've all grown in character over this semester and even though we live in close proximity to one another, we're still all friends and I believe that it will remain like that.

I really want to mention the fact that it snowed yesterday!!! =) It was such an awesome day ... that couldn't have happened at a worse time! Haha! Studying never happened and instead I ended up playing in the snow, taking pictures, going to the National Mall and hanging out in our lounge making snowflakes out of paper. I have been in snow before but never while it was actually falling so when I woke up yesterday and saw it falling outside I jumped off my bed and immediately texted everyone. It's really funny how my closest friends here happen to be from warmer climates ... 2 from LA and one from El Paso. So we all enjoyed ourselves.

Identity has a lot to do with how you view yourself, which impacts how others view you. Sean's blog really captured some of the main qualities of our UC group and even though we aren't all very close, we appreciate one another and there's always someone nearby to help you out. This is our UC community and I'm very happy to be a part of it. Looking forward to next semester.

Reflection: A World of Opportunities

2009-12-04T15:09:00.000-08:00

There was something nice about having a class where I had no fear of voicing my opinions. While we might not have always understood the purpose, the discussions we had were always interesting and stimulating, which has not been the case in most of my other classes. I'm going to miss having the opportunity to learn almost completely through discussion and experience.

If there's anything I learned from this class through our discussions and guest speakers, it's been a reinforcement of what I had already come to understand: Opportunities alight upon us, and while this may or may not be due to luck, it is our own decision whether or not to accept them.

I've noticed this so many times in my life. The best things that have happened to me are things that, well, just sort of happened. I started horseback riding at sixteen because I had said I was maybe possibly considering picking it up again, maybe, after stopping for seven years. So my family friend bought me a gift certificate to get going. And then after a year they gave me a job, and after another year I was leasing my own horse. I hadn't gone into horseback riding with those intentions, they just sort of came about. My love of the horses showed enough in the eyes of others that the head trainer came to me one day and said "You should train to be a Tack Girl." And I said, "Sure, why not?"

Same with acting. The director of my school plays heard a rumor that I was interested in acting, and told me to join his class. I was so scared, I'd never done anything like that before, but eventually I joined in. And soon I was assistant directing him in a number of shows, I was teaching kids at his camp how to act, I was directing my own scenes, and he was paying me for it!

Even more recently, my physics professor this semester noticed how much I enjoy the subject, and encouraged me to go for a double major in Film and Physics, mapping out my four years to convince me it could work.

I think that's the best advice. Let what you love show, and people will notice--and they'll help you get to where you want to be, even if you don't know what that is.

The Age of Explorations

2009-12-04T08:39:00.000-08:00

Our discussion in class today summed up the entire year. Unanswerable questions, differing views, relative morality and uncertain futures characterized nearly all of our discussions in one way or another. As much as the meandering, circling, abstract discussions pained me at the time, I might actually miss them next semester. This class was unique in that it centered almost entirely on us students with our interests, ideas, and concerns for the future. It will be nice to look back next semester when I'm tearing my hair out in Physics and to realize that someday my dream job might just fall into my lap.

I can't decide if this course made me more cynical or more hopeful about the world we live it. It seems that for every action, good or bad, there is an alterior motive and that nothing can be taken at face value. However, the speakers who came in led us to believe that nothing that we are stressing about right now is going to be the end of the world in the long run. Even the books we read varied from depressing cynicism (Goffman's view on funerals) to displays of extreme personal character (Augustine, Heinlein, Sophocles). I suppose that for every tragedy and militaristic saga there also exists someone capable of noble action. I guess that is the point, to realize that few things are wholly good or wholly bad, but it is up to us to decipher the grains of each in the people and events of our lives.

I'll admit that it is tough for me to really reflect on the whole semester. The combination of my massive stress level and sleep deprivation with the mind-boggling amount of stuff that happened is probably the culprit for this impediment. However, I think that it will be interesting to see where this class progresses from here. In the UC sense, to see how we compare, but also in regard to the vast diversity of views held by our class, I think that it is unlikely that any two of us will end up in the same place three and a half years from now.

So with that nod to the past and a little look towards the future, I'll go ahead and end my last blog post with a little nostalgia for being able to publish my opinions to the world and be forced to due it regularly for fear of failing the class. For lack of any coherent words of my own, I would like to end with a quote that I think sums up the class quite nicely:

"Like the sign over the urinal says, 'You hold your future in your hand'"

~ Lew Welch

The Lonely Wanderer

2009-12-01T15:45:00.000-08:00

The question was posed on what community any of us would like to join now or in the future. Seeing as my future is relatively uncertain, I cannot say with any knowledge what community I want to or would likely join. If I could have my way, I would likely join the foreign service. Ambassador Quainton only reinforced my deep craving to do this when he told his wild stories of traveling the world.

On the same note, I would love to become a member of the Peace Corps. Right now, this is about as easy as getting into Harvard Law, and if the economy and unemployment do not improve, it will not be any better by the time I graduate. However, with these two examples leading my list, it is safe to say that I wish to enter the international community. Having been raised by travel junkies, it has always been my wildest dream to travel the world. Ideally, I could do it all. I want to join the elite group of expatriated artists. I want sit and drink coffee and absynthe alongside modern Hemingways. I want to join the Peace Corps and to make a difference with people too poor to make the small changes that would improve their lives forever. I want to join the foreign service and to rub elbows with the world's elite, playing hardball with dictators.

That last one is a lie. Though the first two examples have been in my dreams since I have been literate, the final one has never interested me in the power sense. However to join the foreign service is still an opportunity I could never pass up.

This blog was rambling and back-stepping for a reason. It represents the life I have idealized: trying everything and backing off when you do not like it, but following the threads that you do. In essence, this is the community that I want to join, the backpack-laden twenty-somethings searching for truth abroad. But I'm sure my mind will wander even from this.

Question 13: Lights, Camera, Action

2009-12-01T14:01:00.000-08:00

If I could join any community, it would be the acting community. It's always been a really lame dream of mine to be a film actress.

I love art in all its forms, from music, to drawing, writing, and acting. And I've always loved trying to understand people. Acting sort of encompasses this freedom of expression, with understanding the human mind and interactions. The minute details that can make or break a performance I think are so interesting. There's something so raw in pulling feelings straight out of your gut and putting them out for all to see.

I was a teaching assistant for an acting camp over the summer, and I never felt so in my element, helping people to act, critiquing, and pushing them to go a step further. There was one monologue where I remember this girl was supposed to be speaking to a guy in a coma. Her first line was "John?" and we had her completely leave the room before she started and then walk in. When she said her first line, everyone in the room felt it like a stab in the heart. It's the little things like that that make me want to act.

I have no problem with being on camera, for the most part. If you give me a script or a line, I can do it for you. The issue is that I can't ever watch myself. I HATE the sound of my voice, I think it's so obnoxious. And I can't bear to watch all the mistakes I've made and the idiot I'm being. But I have no problem with the process.

But to be a part of the acting community would be amazing. Even though they're all whiny drama queens. I just think the profession is so intense and interesting. It's not even as exciting as they make it seem in those "making of" videos. It's actually incredibly boring and repetitive. But I still want to be a part of that process, because it seems like a real challenge.

I'm majoring in film right now with the intention of directing, which is probably as close as I'll ever get to acting. I'm probably a better actress in my head than in real life anyway.

I'm Thankful For...

2009-11-29T17:47:00.000-08:00

Yay for Turkey Day!!!

This Thanksgiving was much needed. We all needed a little break before finals week (yikes!) Every other year for as long as I can remember, my family met in Seaside, FL and we would spend our Thanksgiving together. This was always my dad's side of the family, the side that I bond with most. We stopped this tradition, however, when a few of my grandparents became ill and were unable to do a lot of traveling.

These grandparents have since passed away, and this year was the first year we decided to meet again in Florida. Seaside is a fun place, but as you get older you realize that nothing has changed every time you return. It was time for a change. This year also marks a big occasion for the Shmerlings. One of my cousins, Mollie Shmerling (funny right?), is engaged! She is the first of all the cousins, so we are all pretty excited. I met the fiancé for the first time and he's awesome. My uncle, being amazing and generous, had our family stay at the Ritz Carlton, an experience very different from others I have had at other hotels.

Goffman circulated through my head throughout my stay. The Ritz is the epitome of every term in Goffman's vocabulary. There were "performances" going on everywhere you looked and I am pretty sure everyone put up a "front" while staying there. Let's just say I felt a bit out of place. I felt myself having to assimilate into this new crowd of people. I couldn't just walk around barefoot in my pajamas like at normal hotels. No, I had to dress up just to walk to the pool. There wasn't just normal water jugs spread out around the hotel, there were "infusions". Water infused with various fruits. Every person who worked there kept offering to help me or to get me something. Sometimes I just wanted to tell them I could do it myself. After a while, I let it just slide and relaxed a bit. It was weird for me to have people doing so much for me, when most of it I could just do myself. When we left today, they wished us a safe trip and said "Until next time". This made me laugh because for most of their guests, they will be back the next time they travel to Miami. For me, this experience would most likely be a once in a life time experience.

The stay itself was incredibly fun, especially seeing my family. My cousins are all getting so grown up and it is scary to think that one of my cousins is almost 30! He's already balding! Shmerling football on the beach left me incredibly sore, and on top of that, my sister pushed me to go running with her every morning. I can barely move today. I can't wait to get through these next few weeks and be home in December!

Reflection: It's following me...

2009-11-29T15:17:00.001-08:00

So over Thanksgiving break my family and I went into the city to visit friends who were visiting from Texas. They have a daughter the same age as me, Claire, so obviously our families had a lot of college talk between us.

Apparently where Claire goes to school, there are very few people from Texas, and when other students hear that that's where she's from, there's usually a big reaction. And her father went into a description about how "high identity" states like Texas and New York tend to get bigger reaction than other states. I nearly cried.

But I have to admit he had a point. States with a lot of stereotypes or are very known for certain people/mannerisms (aka "high identity") usually get a bigger reaction from people. I can remember from the first few weeks being here at school, I met a girl from Alaska. She smiled when she told me and said "I love to see people's reactions." She was pale, blonde haired, blue eyed, and looked nothing like the Inuit Eskimo image I had in my head of Alaskans. Minus Sarah Palin. But it took me by surprise because we were all the way in DC, where people in this part of the country think of igloos and dogseld races when they think of Alaska.

These "high identity" states also bring in the idea of "othering" that has been talked about in class. When people think of states such as Texas, California, Alaska, Hawaii, these states are very clearly not like your own, and therefore we're more excited to find out from people what their lives are like there. We assume they must be very different from ours, even when it might not be any more different than someone from Nebraska.

Black Friday!

2009-11-29T12:39:00.000-08:00

We don't celebrate Thanksgiving in Trinidad, however, this is the 2nd time I've celebrated it with my cousins in Pennsylvania. My dad and my eldest sister came up from Trinidad to join us. As usual we had lots of fun preparing the meal and it was very tasty! Nevertheless, I have to say that our biggest thing is the shopping on Black Friday! From the time I met up with them on Tuesday, the talk of the house was the sales and which stores we wanted to go to. Haha. It's hilarious how into it we get. It's quite a spectacle to see us poring over the catalogues that come in the Thanksgiving Day papers...my dad's coworker who also made the trip from Trini, made detailed notes and even went to Best Buy to map out where to find the stuff she wanted to get on sale! My eldest sister got sick on Thanksgiving Day but after her nap she made it out at 1:30am with us to go shopping and with breakfast and lunch breaks we shopped till around 5pm.

The adrenaline on Black Friday really keeps us going...it was only when we breaked for lunch the weariness kicked in...but we got enough steam to hit 3 more shops. Black Friday has become a family tradition now...we take it seriously and if you know you won't make it through the day, then don't bother joining us. =)

When I think about it, shopping is a strange family tradition but it's one that we enjoy. I guess you could say it's part of our identity.

Turkey Day Tension

2009-11-29T10:39:00.000-08:00

What is it about sitting around a table with the whole family that makes you wish that you were somewhere else? It seems that the American Thanksgiving is more often characterized now by obscure relatives calling you out for weight gain or a bad habit than the chummy family table scene that makes the old holiday movies.

My Thanksgiving dinner was nothing extreme. I ate with my parents and grandparents and was stuck inside all day, drinking wine provided by my dad as my mother and grandparents gawked in silent astonishment, however, I finished the night off strong at a late showing of the cinematic masterpiece, Ninja Assassin. But many of my friends were not so lucky. Has the American family really deteriorated to such a level of guilt, judgement, and insecurity that two of my close friends walked out on their Thanksgiving to retreat back to dorm rooms or city parks, while a few others dashed as soon as the last pie was gone to escape?

I think this says something about the original Thanksgiving. Pilgrims and Indians (Native Americans) were not family or friends, hence, they were the best people to sit around a table with. Only surface judgements could be made, but the uneasy truce of sharing the table made even these unlikely. But the civility inherent in those who do not know each other very well is something that needs to be reintroduced at the family table for the sake of those present.

Heinlein and the Art of Military Maintenance

2009-11-27T09:05:00.000-08:00

Heinlein makes the argument that all values reduce to the necessity to survive -- and that in consequence, war (and the preparation for war) can never be eliminated. Is he right? Well he's half right. It would be foolish to say that, when it all comes down, we don't act for the ultimate end of survival. Even acts that can be misconstrued as purely selfless are most often for ultimate survival. A mother's self sacrifice for her child's survival and the Passion of the Christ both represent one person's sacrifice for the ultimate survival of their offspring/humanity.

On the other hand, however, this idea does not mean that war can never be eliminated. Heinlein's model implies that there is constant warfare where no country or group ever comes to dominate the scene. This completely improbable scenario would create perpetual armament, but more likely would be the development of an international/intergallactic hegemon. Then, in some period similar to the Pax Romana, there could be a massive degree of disarmament and a period where few feel threatened or capable of going to war. In this case, acting on necessity to survive would not be war and perpetual armament, but cooperation with the emerged hegemon in hopes of receiving benevolence.

Likewise, constant militarization could lead to massive armament by all nations to the point of an impending mutual destruction. This case could also lead to disarmament on a huge scale and the relative peace among nations. Though in this case, it is likely that different forms of armament would restart, leading to the exact end that Heinlein suggests in as many cases as true disarmament occurs.

So human values do eventually deteriorate to only the will to survive, but survival will not always be by military means as Heinlein suggests. However, Heinlein's argument carries merit in many cases, but is simply not as sweeping as it would suggest.

Question 12: Nukes

2009-11-26T00:03:00.000-08:00

The problem is, if one community's got a military, then they all need a military to survive. The only way it wouldn't be necessary is if they all agreed not to raise militaries, which would be quite a rarity.

Think about all the controversy over countries having nukes. Ideally, no country should have them. But the second someone suggests that 'well then why doesn't the US get rid of all their nukes?', it's obvious that's never going to happen. We need nukes, because other countries are always going to have nukes. And why are other countries going to have nukes? Because we have nukes. It's like the whole "Give me the hostage, then I'll give you the money," "No, you give me the money, then I'll give you the hostage." No one trusts anyone.

While I'm not sure it is of the highest priority for every community, I think that it is certainly necessary to have a military in order to survive. Living in a community without a military is like living in a house without walls and a roof. You're completely exposed to whatever comes your way. Even a mediocre military is better than none at all, just for the message it implies.

Think about the identity of a community that does not harbor a military. They obviously value peace and diplomatic conflict resolution. But the identity of a community who considers military top priority sees force as a way of solving problems.

Guess who's going to win in an argument?

But even a community who has a military of ten people who wear sweatpants as their uniforms send out a more aggressive and influential message than the community with no army at all. Because at least this community is saying "We are willing to defend outselves." They might still value diplomacy over force, and they obviously do not find the military to be their top priority, but they are still telling other communities that they will fight back if they need to.

Similarly, a country with one nuke has more power than a country with none. Even though no one really wants nukes around at all, we all still know that's never going to happen, and the country with the most nukes still holds a great deal of power.

Well-Orchestrated Chaos

2009-11-23T06:53:00.000-08:00

I saw a green sign with red letters today, advertising for a service opportunity, but I thought it was a sign for Newports. Yep. I had been to the south. I spent the weekend driving to Fort Benning, Georgia and back, though we did manage to go to a protest for just-over-24 hours that we were not on the road. So between multiple trips to Waffle House, I saw and participated in a festival and solemn service reminiscent of the Vietnam protests.

A modern day protest, set within inches of a major military base, is much like a ballet. It was organized, disciplined, and it caused you to drop your sense of reality. On day one there was a festival of different groups, peddling their different causes with t-shirts and petitions. Cops stood around drinking coffee and talking casually with the protesters. They knew that there was nothing to worry about. Then came day two. There were three options during the solemn march, mourning the loss of those who had fallen to the SOA: stay safe, low risk, and high risk. The safe option involved simply marching within the designated protesting area with no chance of arrest whatsoever. The low risk option was the most visible, marching down the street to meet the waiting squad of police cars with an officer casually reading the charges of "parading without a permit." Ironically, the most extreme form of disobedience, crossing onto Fort Bennig property, is the least visible. Nuns and priests slip out of eyesight to cross in private and to await their 6-month sentence.

What is present here is true civil disobedience. There is apparent chaos but, in reality, there is none. The police know the drill. They appear almost bored as they round up the law-breaking protesters for holding up traffic or trespassing on federal property. As much as it kills me to say it, it is a lot like Goffman's ideas in that it is very much a display, put on for the onlookers, the cops, and the protesters alike.

New Moon!

2009-11-22T15:34:00.000-08:00

This weekend I went to see New Moon (please don't judge me) and I have been thinking about how much of an impact it has had on culture. I went shopping today and not only were there life-sized cardboard cutouts of Edward Cullen and Jacob staring at me as I left the dressing room, but there were t-shirts in various colors all having to do with New Moon. Some said "Team Jacob" and others said "Team Edward". It is crazy that this movie has made such an impact on our culture. It is being talked about by everyone and there are countless products being produced to promote the movie. I think it is interesting that the movie was first a book because its popularity really seemed to flourish when it became a movie. I think this says something about our culture. Media plays a huge role in our society. I was talking about the movie after I saw it with Keara and Anna, and I thought it was interesting how we all had different takes on the movie and the book. Anna and I didn't read the books, whereas Keara had. We were discussing whether or not we preferred watching a movie about a book or just reading the book. We all had different opinions about this topic, but I came to the conclusion that many people prefer a more condensed version of and thus a movie is a perfect way to receive that. The Twilight books seem to be much more detailed and long, whereas the movie is much more condensed. I am torn because although I love to read with detail in order to visualize what is going on, but a movie is much more convenient and almost does the work for you. Are people, like me, just getting lazy? I almost felt guilty after the movie that I hadn't read the books and I plan to at least try and get through them in order to understand what the movie missed. Again, I think it is out of a bit of laziness and convenience that I preferred the movie. Not to mention the extremely attractive actors that make the movie even better!

A Weekend of Performing Arts

2009-11-22T15:31:00.000-08:00

So I had an awesome week! I got to see the NSO with Joshua Bell (a famous violinist) at the Kennedy Center on Thursday night. I also went to see 'Carmina Burana' and the AU in Motion Dance Show. It was one of my best weekends so far at AU.

I want to focus on the NSO performance, which was phenomenal. It was my first time at the Kennedy Center and even though I went by myself, I enjoyed it. The first thing you see when you walk in is a long hallway with the flags of the world hanging above you. (I saw my flag :-)) It's an amazing feeling...you feel like royalty because of the red carpets. I was possibly one of the youngest people there that night. As I made my way to my seat, I was surrounded by elderly people even those with oxygen tanks. Listening to them chatting behind me and across me, I realised that some of them were regulars...they didn't even know what the program was until they sat down and read the schedule. They obviously just enjoy the classical music.

As I watched people trying to find their seats, I thought to myself that it would be really cool to do an ethnography on the audience there. There was such a wide variety of personalities and some of them didn't look like the typical fans classical music. I saw this one guy who wore a ton of gold jewelry, and it wasn't simple chains but bulky ones with jewels in them and he also wore rings and lots of bracelets. He seemed to be a regular NSO follower as well because he knew some of the people around me.

I had gone to the performance primarily for my Understanding Music class to take notes on the performance as well as the audience. Funnily enough, I got a lot of help from the audience as we exited after the program. There were lots of people so it took a while to get down the staircase and all around me everyone was critiquing the NSO and the composers. It was amazing! I am a music lover and I felt really at home...the audience was so knowledgeable. I compared this audience to the one at AU's Carmina Burana, the following night. There was such a big contrast! AU's crowd didn't chat about anything musical between numbers. It was a very different experience for me.

BONUS Question

2009-11-22T14:38:00.000-08:00

The American Indian Museum was more than I expected. I had always seen the building from afar but it's so much more amazing when you're standing right next to it. I made a comment to my friend that it felt strange because of the crops and plants surrounding ... it didn't feel like downtown DC anymore.

The first thing I noticed when I entered the museum was how simple the decor was. The architecture was the main focus. From outside, the shape of the building was obscure but from inside it was clear that it was a tepee.

The museum expressed the values of the American Indians. I was unable to explore the museum fully but I loved the floor with all the different tribes. The exhibits were well laid out and each tribe display was located in a room of the tepee - the tepee being the building. Each section was a remembrance of who these people were and what they believed in. From what I remember, the museum never criticised the Native American way of life. It felt like the museum was in honor of the American Indians. The night after our visit, I was thinking that there wasn't any section about the killing of the Indians. Did anyone see this anywhere? It wasn't like about their history exactly because it didn't include their extinction. I suppose that it's more a celebration of American Indian culture than the actual events over the years.

Reflection: The Most Wonderful Time of the Year!

2009-11-22T13:03:00.000-08:00

This was a particularly uneventful week. I will come right out and say that for the first time I'm kind of at a loss for what to reflect about.

Thanksgiving is coming up, and I'm so excited to go home and start the season of all my favorite traditions. My mom taught me how to make boereg a few years ago--it's one of my favorite foods in the world. It takes forever to make because we usually do a ton in one sitting, and it's also really tedious and you have to make it fast because it's made out of layers of filo dough, which is so thin it rips really easily and dries out super fast. But it's so much fun because my mom and I sit side by side and pop in a movie and just sit and make tons of boereg.

Thanksgiving is also the day that we have, every year without fail, listened to "Alice's Restaurant." I don't even really know how the tradition started (I think it's on the radio every year?) but all I know is that when I was little, I didn't realize he was saying "Alice's" and thought it was "Allison's Restaurant." Every year I thought we listened to it because it was about me!

And then soon after Thanksgiving it's the Christmas season! Nothing is better than a snow-covered ground, hot chocolate, a crackling fire, and my favorite: skiing.

I was talking to Gina the other night about how one of the best feelings in the world is when you peel off all your layers from a successful ski day, your face still chapped from the cold, your hands clasping a steamy cup of cocoa, and you're cuddling up with a blanket to watch a movie with your family and friends. I would give up ever seeing summer again to relive the perfect winter day over and over.

Skiing is one of the best ways to get a natural high. When you're teetering on the tip of a mogul, too scared to move because everywhere you can go you're convinced will lead to your death--trees, rocks, ice, grass--and it's all way steeper than you remember. You look up and know you can't hike back up, and you look down and start to feel dizzy. But everyone's ahead of you and you can't stay there forever. It's such a mind game, and you try to plan where the best place to go would be, but when you finally make the move, shaking and crying, you lift your skis and just drop. Suddenly you're flying and that spot you had spent crying over is now miles in the past. When you get to the bottom you collapse, and look up at what you just accomplished. And you feel like you can do anything.

(Photo is from Lower Glade at Mad River Glen, the best mountain ever!)

Is Violence the Answer?

2009-11-18T21:50:00.000-08:00

It is easy to say that "violence is not the answer" but realistically, this is not always the case. I think a lot of the time, war or fighting has only made the underlying issues worse. Sometimes, the reason for going to war or for fighting over a specific issue is a power struggle. No one wants to be wrong in an argument, and arguments are capable of getting to a level where neither side will back out. Then violence comes into the picture and everything is thrown off from there. Either violence can end a seemingly endless argument or it can make things more complicated. I think the point of the quote "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worse, breed that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms" -- Starship Troopers, p. 27" is to expose the reality of violence. Sometimes it is necessary. Like Allison said, violence is sometimes used in response of an attack; a kind of self defense. In this case, I believe violence is justified because otherwise you will end up the victim of the attacker. Violence can also be used to prove a point and prevent others from breaking the rules. Consider the death penalty. I am against the death penalty myself, but one could make the point that the death penalty is used as a deterrent. With the use of this type of violence, it shows others who might commit a crime the consequence of their actions. On the flip side, the idea of violence serving as a deterrent reminded me of Antigone. When Creon banishes Antigone it is to serve as a deterrent for the rest of the community. He initially uses this to justify his violence, but in the end he realizes it only made things worse (Haeman kills himself).

Violence - Right or Wrong?

2009-11-18T16:03:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure where to begin. This is a difficult topic for me. I guess I'll start by saying that violence is obviously necessary in certain situations like, self-defense. Although if you think about it, self defense wouldn't be needed if someone hadn't attacked you. This is where the issue of good vs. bad violence comes in. The vision of riots are coming into my mind right now...I think that the violence often demonstrated in some protests are unimaginable. If you visit the Newseum you see that most of the Pulitzer Prize Gallery consists of violent photographs. It's scary to even imagine that people can do such horrible things and I sometimes feel like I live in a bubble ... far away from the hardships of war. One of the pictures shows men about to be executed. I sometimes wonder how the photographers are able to get these pictures taken! Anyway, personally I do not like violence and I don't think anyone should like it. Nevertheless, violence has solved many problems.

The problem is that these acts of violence usually end with bloodshed and murder. All the people that die in wars are somebody's relative, mother, father, brother, sister, cousin etc. and someone loves them. This is what pains me about violence. I recently finished reading "In Cold Blood" which is a book about the murder of a family in Kansas in 1959. The 2 murderers were eventually hanged but throughout the book esp. the section on their last days, you come to see them as human beings...they have feelings and even though they may be insane, I do not agree that we should have killed them.

If we all abstained from violence and maybe tried some other forms of resolution, then we would not need to use naked force to protect ourselves. This seems unlikely ever to work out, but why? ... Why can't we try it? Maybe it's because it's in our blood? I don't know. Let's see - if the world had no violence, it would be great.

I do agree with some points Allison makes on this topic, particularly where she says that "violence equals power". People use violence to prove their strength and dominance over others. For example, with the American Indians and their extinction. In order to obtain the land, they killed the Indians. They considered themselves to be powerful and superior to this race. If you're a power-hungry person, I guess you would look at violence as the only method.

It all depends on which side you're on. Sometimes the peaceful people are forced to fight because they are attacked. Although, some refuse to commit any acts of violence and are injured or killed. Violence is unfair; if you're against it, you're hurt and if you're for it, you win. Human life should be treasured and how one person can hurt another intentionally just baffles me.

Question 11: Sociopathic Murder or Natural Selection?

2009-11-18T13:30:00.000-08:00

Well, duh, violence is effective. You want that money behind the counter? Shoot the clerk. Get the money. You want that country? Bomb the shit out of them. It's yours. I would say that is a pretty effective tactic.

Because frankly, no one particularly wants to be killed or injured by someone else. Pain is usually better if avoided, as well as massive losses of your population. So if you're threatened, you're usually going to do what they say--and more so than if someone walked into your store and said "Excuse me, yes hi, you see, I would really like to have some of that money behind the counter, so do you think you could maybe give it to me, please?"

Violence equals power. It always has, and it does for every species. We've evolved into a weird exception, where in everyday life it's frowned upon, but if you zoom out into a world view you'll see it's still the same. But obviously even in everyday life there's still evidence that violence trumps all, particularly in robbing, kidnapping, hijacking, and the like. The reason for this it simple: If you use violence, either everyone's going to die and you get what you want because you killed them all, or, they give you what you want and they stay alive. Violence is selfish, but it's the only way someone can get everything they want without compromise, except for maybe blackmail.

The thing that stops the average person from implementing violence to get anything and everything they want is because we have grown up with the morals and understanding that this is wrong. Remember when you were a kid and your mom yelled at you for pushing that other kid when he wouldn't give you a turn on the swing? It's in our nature to fight for what we want. It's in our culture to fight for it without violence.

Obviously I don't condone violence. I can't even kill a ladybug, though there are plenty in my dorm room. But I do believe that the idea of violence can be looked at in two very different ways. One is that every life is valued, every life should be respected, and therefore violence is an incredibly immoral act. And the other is that we are fighting to survive as a species--and not individually--and for this reason single lives are expendable, so violence is a necessary and natural way of going about doing things. Isn't that how we view other animals? When the big scary lion kills the scrawny lion so he can steal his food, we call it natural selection, not sociopathic murder.

The difference is our industrialization, which sort of removed any sort of natural selection that takes place in humans. I think it's this transition from living as a species to living as a person that changed our view about dying and using violence to get what we want. But it is still in all of us. (ie Lord Of The Flies). And the fact that we look down upon violence doesn't mean it's any less effective.

Bumper Sticker Philosophy

2009-11-17T09:41:00.000-08:00

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor."

- Mr. Dubois

What Heinlein is doing here is presenting us with a comment that we find morally reprehensible and impossible to believe, yet one that we are unable to discount. Has raw violence settled more issues in history than any other factor? Probably. However, raw violence has also had quite a few more chances to settle these disputes due to man kinds affinity for the like. Additionally, while violence is often considered a single factor for change, the many forms of non-violence are often divided up into respective categories such a protest, dissent, diplomacy, etc. In light of this idea, is violence still the great settler of disputes? The answer is less clear.

Then one must distinguish between war, and simple violence. There is a common bumper sticker in towns more conservative than this one, and it reads: "War never solved anything, except for communism, fascism, and slavery." Assessing the validity of this statement, the footing is, even initially, a little shaky. Communism, though not a superpower governing structure, still exists in functioning governments around the world. Fascism, though seen to fall after WWII, can still display visible remnants in many Third World and developing nations where super-nationalism and discipline mask deeper issues. So, when seen from this angle it seems that war can destroy institutions and governments, but cannot create. Stable democracies after communist and fascist regimes as well as civil rights were not created by wars, but by people with better intentions willing to put the time, effort and money into the development of something positive from the wreckage of war. Communism, fascism, and slavery may have been beaten by war, but nothing was "settled" until the peacemakers arrived.

But Heinlein did not say war, he said violence, which is distinctly different, and significantly less accurate. History shows that violence outside of war, such as race riots, carpet bombings, police attacking protestors, and the like all have a disturbing effect on the community at large as opposed to a settling one.

So although Mr. Dubois would refer to my ideas as wishful thinking and dangerous, I must respectfully disagree. Though violence may solve some things as a contributing factor, to say that it fully solves anything or to say that it is has settled more issues than any other factor is both irresponsible and delusional, Heinlein's intentions aside.

Happy Birthday to me =)

2009-11-15T20:45:00.000-08:00

So I'm turning 20 and I'm really excited. My family has always been big on birthdays and this is my first birthday away. Ever since I was younger, I always couldn't wait to be older. Haha. I never understood people who said they wanted to go back to being younger - I've always been looking towards the future.

I am really enjoying life right now. I have great friends both back home and here at AU. I am very thankful for the wonderful people on my floor... UC and non-UC alike. As everyone knows, I practically live in the floor lounge with Aline! I feel so comfortable there and every night the rest of the lounge crew arrives and we have such a good time together studying. I have no complaints about my roomie and I have some close friends like Aline, Adam and Isaac.... and Katie and Ana have accepted me as their unofficial roomie. If it weren't for all these people, I would not be having such a great experience. I've been thinking about the Christmas break and going back home...and while I am excited to see my Trini family and friends, I will definitely miss my AU buddies (esp. my Taco mates (Aline and Adam ... and Isaac)).

I really love how our floor feels like a family ... and I wouldn't trade it for any other floor on campus.

Thanx guys for making me feel loved and special on my birthday weekend =)

Love you all :-)

Reflection: I hate history

2009-11-14T17:50:00.000-08:00

Ambassador Quainton was definitely my favorite speaker. Maybe it was his personality, but he was the most engaging and interesting out of everyone we'd had come to speak.

I'm not an SIS major. And I actually don't really like history at all, but when he spoke about it I was honestly interested. What he had to say about knowing another country's history, and understanding that their starting point and your starting point may be different when approaching an issue was something I had never really thought about before but it made so much sense. Two people who come from different cultures and different ways of understanding something obviously don't view each other in the same light.

Maybe the reason why I found this so interesting was because it isn't just something to be applied to international relations--it applies to individuals as well. Any two people obviously don't view the world in the same light, don't have the same knowledge and beliefs, and therefore don't always start on the same page when approaching problems and issues.

Anyway, as a whole, I really really liked Ambassador Quainton. I found his stories were fascinating (and I'm so jealous because I want to travel!!) and I thought he was a very smart man with the kind of incredible past that I dream of one day having.

An Evolving Foreign Service

2009-11-13T09:44:00.000-08:00

Ambassador Quainton was definitely my favorite guest so far. As someone with an interest in the foreign service as well as just getting out to see the world, it was amazing to meet a man who had transparently done it all. However, his essay, while I believe it to be true, gave me some pause about my ability to break into the foreign service and not to be tucked into some niche never to be heard from again. Ambassador Quainton admitted that his having served on all seven continents was an oddity, but from hearing him speak and reading his essay, it seems as if we are headed towards a time when serving in more than one country may be outside the norm.

This brings me to the idea of specialization. It's at the heart of capitalism and it reaching its tentacles into nearly every other aspect of our culture. Why not? It makes sense that if each person can be the best at some very specialized area, then as a country, we can be the best across the board. Quainton argued that this specialization would have to be the future of the foreign service if it is to keep up in the developing world of technology. True as this may be, the idea of the renaissance man (or woman) derived from an age of enlightenment for a reason. Specialization, despite breeding excellence in one area, tends to breed incomprehensible incompetence in other areas. It seems odd that while most businesses are searching for a liberal arts education for their employees, that the foreign service should begin to do the opposite.

Clearly the intention of Ambassador Quainton was not to approach one extreme or another, but to imply certain necessity for certain new and finely tuned skills in the foreign service if it is to survive. And who can blame him? This truth is clearly the case in nearly every industry that wishes to survive in a changing world, it must evolve.

Reflection: Antigone Now and Then

2009-11-08T09:09:00.000-08:00

I just read Antigone last year in my AP Lit class. It's interesting because I know a lot of people have been talking about how amazing the difference is between college and high school and how college is so much more in depth and though-provoking. Maybe it was my teacher, but I feel like my high school experience of Antigone was just as intelligent as the discussions we have now. It was just a different approach to the book.

Obviously my AP Lit class was not centered around the idea of identity, it was centered around analyzing literature. We read Antigone after reading Oedipus, and we broke down the formula for a Greek tragedy (position of power, tragic flaw, revelation, reversal). We then read Hamlet, and discussed the differences in approach to the genre between the two. We read a modern interpretation of Antigone, and examined how that approach differed as well. We discussed what makes a tragic hero, and other forms of literature that were influenced by these styles.

And all these things have nothing to do with that we are learning. I think that's even better, because now I've been able to see the work in two different lights. I broke it down for what it was, and examined how it was put together, and then now I've broken it down for what it represents and what it implies in a greater picture.

Both of these approaches are necessary, and I also think they were appropriate for the age at which I was taught it.

What a week!

2009-11-07T18:16:00.000-08:00

I am so relieved that this week is over with! It was definitely a difficult one with because of my Psych exam on Friday. I really needed to do well on the test so I spent most of my week reviewing and it paid off because I felt pretty good about it in the end.

I also enjoyed the Wednesday Lab for Explorations. It was my first time reading Antigone and by Wednesday I hadn't finished it as yet so the acting helped a lot. Being able to see and hear certain scenes of the play make them easier for me to remember ... I am a very visual person. I also want to commend the actors and actresses on a brilliant job! Some of them were particularly special. I felt a bit strange being on the other side of the performance because I've spent most of my life being part of performances and knowing what's going on behind the scenes. I liked it though - it was a change just being able to relax and take it all in.

This week's lab should be interesting for Veteran's Day. I have never gone to the Arlington Cemetery so I'm excited.

( Happy Birthday Katie!!! )

Antigone and the Passive-Aggressive Gods

2009-11-07T17:38:00.000-08:00

Our discussion on Antigone strayed into the domain of wondering where the gods stood on the whole issue, as they would be the deciding force in ancient Greece. Thanks to the seer, we can clearly see that the Gods stand on the side of Antigone, but do not feel it is important enough to show up and say so themselves. The fact that the gods do not appear is a departure from nearly all other Theban plays who referenced the gods often and had them make appearances at least intermittently.

The reasoning behind the gods' shyness in Antigone easily could have been derrived from one of Sophocles' themes, such as the rampant individualism in the play or the conflict of human law with natural law, which does not always coincide with the laws of the gods.

Antigone's self-righteous individualism would have been lessened by the presence of the gods delivering punishments or morals as opposed to allowing Antigone's actions to go on for the effect. Likewise, their absence makes her individualism all the more powerful in that there is some disagreement as to whether the gods would have approved.

On Natural Law, Antigone claims to follow natural law, while Creon claims that his law of the state is the overarching authority. However, this conflict also would have simmerred had the gods been involved to clear it up.

Hence, this play runs on a certain degree of ambiguity. That is why we were able to have a trial in class and use the book for citation, because there is no clear cut moral code that has been broken or upheld. That is what makes this play unique also.

Weath and Poverty: Is It That Important?

2009-11-04T20:12:00.000-08:00

In terms of social arrangements, wealth and poverty is an important factor, but I don't think it is the most important. Take for example, communities. Yes, financial stability is an important factor in determining where one lives or what part of a community they live in. For example, I live in a small town that is extremely affluent, but just a five-minute car ride away, there is another area that is less affluent and it is evident in their living arrangement. The two areas, where I live and the area nearby, are clearly divided by wealth. Like I said, this isn't the only factor. Social status, religion, ethnic/cultural backgrounds also play into the way social arrangements are organized. People tend to live among others like themselves, so this automatically segregates people in that way too.

Issue of Wealth and Poverty

2009-11-04T16:44:00.000-08:00

How a society "deals with the problem of wealth and poverty" is definitely a major factor in the overall health of that society. I agree with 'Joe's' blog on this topic. He writes that issues of poverty and wealth have always impacted revolutions in the past. This book mainly focuses on American culture but many of the theories can work for many other countries such as mine of Trinidad and Tobago.

Different degrees of prosperity among citizens creates many problems. It often results in a division in a society depending on how much money someone has.

I don't mean to say that societies aren't affected by other things but I do agree that it is a main factor to consider. Some other areas may include issues of race and gender. Although as 'Chips and Salsa' pointed out to me in the lounge (she's sitting down right next to me), races and minorities in particular are usually linked to different classes of wealth. If you consider gender then this could bring up some more issues but I do not think that this is a major factor to be considered.

A Public Option for Societal Health

2009-11-04T12:45:00.000-08:00

Is how a society "deals wth the problem of wealth and poverty" a "litmus test . . . for assaying the health of a society?" Yes. History has shown that high income gaps are the first step to revolution. As is happening now, when the rich just keep getting richer, and the poor poorer, there is an inherent civic unrest due to the inequality in the system. Revolutions such as those in Russia, Cuba, and former Soviet satellites can all be traced to rampant poverty with a small wealthy elite (likely a corrupt one). Therefore it would only make sense that when evaluating the health of particular social relationships or arrangements that how wealth and poverty are dealt with is the ultimate litmus for sustainability.

However, this assertion is not to say that other factors are not important for the health of a particular society. Other factors such issues of conflicting ideologies, physical and mental attributes that might come into conflict and the management thereof, would all come into play. Even then, many of those issues and their arousal can be traced back to issues of wealth and poverty, showing Bellah's theory to be correct.

In essence, so much of human behavior can be explained by money matters, even that which does no appear to relate at the surface, that the management of socioeconomic differences within a society is the single most important thing that a societal structure can do to maintain relative peace. Hence, sensing how well a society manages it is the perfect litmus test pertaining to that society's long term health.

Family Weekend

2009-11-01T13:27:00.000-08:00

So last weekend my parents visited me and although I haven't suffered from homesickness, I was thankful for it. My mom hadn't ever visited AU or DC and neither had my aunt so I was excited to show them around. My dad had come to AU for Freshman Day and also to help me move in August but there were many places I though they all needed to see.

I came up with an informal schedule for their trip, which included some of my favourite DC sites. Some of these sites became favourites after our UC trips. Since our trip to the Portrait Gallery, I couldn't wait to carry my mom there because she loves art. I also carried them to the National Cathedral which was fun to do again. We had a different tour guide and it really intrigued me how she pointed out so many new things. I thought I would've been bored but I was just as interested as during our visit. The tour guides all have their different methods and I guess what interests them impacts the content they choose for their tours. I also got to go to the 7th floor where we were able to experience a 360 degree view of DC. You can see the National Mall from up there and with it being Fall, the trees were beautiful. This is my first Fall and I love watching the leaves change colours. :)

With regard to the discussions in class about college choice, I have to say that I am happy here at AU. I love the friendly nature of the school ... I mean I sing in the church choir right next to my Psychology professor and sometimes call him by his first name! I love that we can do this and I wouldn't trade it in for unapproachable faculty.

Education and the Democratic Process

2009-10-31T12:27:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure exactly what everyone ate before the last class; but while people starve worldwide, wars rage, and genocide is allowed to continue, we argued heatedly about the morality of American's choice to use part of our tuition money to provide a public service for the community. A public service that benefits the school and student body in various ways, no less.

Someone brought up idea that, although we pay tuition, we do not receive a vote on the decisions for the regular goings on within the school. There were several issues with this that I would like to explore.

First, a school is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Unlike in a democracy, intelligence is usually a factor for progression through the academic hierarchy. As to the idea that we (the tuition-paying students) do not vote for the board of trustees and other such positions. Would we want to? Would we do a better job? The answer to both is probably not. Additionally, if money is the deciding factor in these decisions, then the trustees likely have enough votes to elect themselves by this logic.

This idea leads me into another similar idea. If this country was a democracy where the number of votes each person got was based on the amount that they paid in taxes and contributions to the government, people like Bill Gates and hedge fund managers would be able to cancel out whole inter-city neighborhoods during the elections, hardly a democratic way of going about it. In the same way, at this school, should people on scholarship get less of a say? American already runs more heavily on tuition than almost any other school, as President Kerwin told us, so therefore we already have a larger say over the workings of the school than nearly any other student body in the country.

So to bring it back to WAMU, whether we agree with it or not, as a relatively uneducated public in regard to the financial workings of the university and its support of WAMU and the possible kickbacks that are included, it is hardly in our place to take one statistic and to decide that we should have a popular uprising. This may be college, but we're not all Che Guevara.

Reflection: Dear Explorers,

2009-10-30T15:33:00.000-07:00

I really honestly cannot describe how thankful I am for the support I received when I was in the hospital.

I don't usually get really sick, so normally when I don't feel right I don't really worry. I might complain, but I usually know it's nothing serious. When I got sick on Monday, it was the worst I'd felt in a long time and I was really really scared. It was also the first time I was on my own to handle it, and I couldn't have handled it without your help. It means so much to me that you guys were there.

I have a severe phobia of needles. As in, even thinking about needles right now is making me cringe. My mother (who knows everything) suspects it's a sort of PTSD from when I was younger and was hospitalized for Kawasaki's Disease, but all I know is that Me + Needles = You-stick-me-with-that-I'll-stick-it-in-your-eye-bitch.

So two days with an IV in my arm, plus shots, and daily blood drawings (plus one on the top of my hand....WTF??) had me beside myself. But knowing that people cared honestly made me feel so much better. I didn't feel so alone, even while I sobbingly let them shove skinny pieces of metal in my veins. (Ewwwwnfjska;vnjkl fnns)

So thanks. I'm feeling tons better now (enough to be totally stressed by how much work I have, hahaha). And after this I'm going to sleep (Yes I know it's 7:00). Happy Halloween everyone!

Love,
Allison

What is with these depressing conversations??

2009-10-30T10:45:00.000-07:00

I don't know about everyone else, but for the last few classes I've left with a negative feeling. Our conversation last class about whether AU was our first choice or not, really got to me. I personally am thrilled that I got into AU and for me, it was one of my top choices. Several people seemed to have negative views on coming to AU and expressed them very clearly. It seems to me that a lot of people in our class are bitter about not going to the college of their choice, but why waste your time thinking about where you could have gone to school, when you are sitting in classroom at a university that offers so much. Wherever anyone goes to college, it becomes what they make of it. You can be happy in most universities, it's just up to you to use what the university offers and to keep a positive attitude. I felt almost hurt at what some people were saying about AU when AU was one of my top schools and I worked hard to get here.

Today's discussion would have been fine, but I think that people are unable to express their ideas without others shooting them down. Why can't we all just agree to disagree? If someone doesn't agree with what someone else said, then they should just respectfully state their opinion and let it go.

Bottom line, I think people need to relax and stop dwelling on the past.

p.s. HAPPY HALLOWEEN (almost)

Individualism: Past and Present

2009-10-28T13:10:00.000-07:00

I'm not too sure what to make of this excerpt but I will make an attempt to discuss the topic of individualism. What I get from it is that nowadays people strive to be individuals rather than to be just a member of a group.

The author writes that "a return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression" (Bellah et. al., p.144). I think Bellah is trying to say that people were more group-oriented. For example, in the times of slavery, if you were white you were expected to hate blacks. Nowadays, people want to be special - they want to explore their own ideas and develop their personal opinions. Modern individualism involves everyone finding their own niche in society. Everyone is given the opportunity to be who they want to be; there is equality for all. Bellah speaks of the "unequal rights and obligations" of the biblical and republican traditions. The modern world is all about fighting for equality.

This change in the meaning of individualism is driving people away from societies and into isolation. Bellah writes that "if the break with society is too radical, life has no meaning at all" (p.144). I agree with this as everyone needs relationships to be able to enjoy life. I support the idea of individuality but I think it should not be taken to the extreme. People should try to develop their identity without totally breaking away from society.

Analysis Question: Modern Individualism

2009-10-27T10:13:00.000-07:00

"Modern individualism seems to be producing a way of life that is neither individually nor socially viable, yet a return to traditional forms would be to return to intolerable discrimination and oppression" (p. 144)

I guess I'm not really sure how we're supposed to respond to this quote, but from what I read, the author does not like the way life is right now. In what way is modern individualism producing this way of life that the author describes? It is true that if we went back in time and lived the way we used to, there definitely would be more discrimination and oppression. We have come a long way as a nation to reduce racism, sexism, and all the other "isms" out there. It seems like this author has a negative outlook on life as it is now, but I think it would be helpful if he or she explained in what ways modern individualism is "producing a way of life that is neither individually nor socially viable".

No Man is an Island

2009-10-27T09:34:00.000-07:00

Do older civic traditions have the ability to reformulate themselves into something socially viable for the modern world? Of course they do. Will the older social and civic institutions be the ones behind that reform? Doubtful. As modern individualism has led from simply seeing yourself and acting as an individual to doing everything on your own in a self-destructive fashion, there eventually must be a tipping point back to an interdependent society. Older civic and biblical traditions offer viable interdependent societies that already have a basis in success. However, as many women do not want to be sold into prostitution as punishment, and many minorities do not want to experience forced labor or other forms of oppression, there must be reform within these systems.

Thomas Merton, a trappist monk and author during the Vietnam era, wrote a book and essay titled No Man is an Island. In the essay, he expands on the idea that modern individualism does not allow for self-discovery because self-discovery requires the presence of other people and that this new kind of individualism conflicts directly with a spiritual life. However, Merton, in recommending a new kind of outlook on individualism, does not demand the catholic viewpoint only, but a hodgepodge of viewpoints, for the purpose of achieving the best possible method of self-discovery.

Merton's idea is essentially what is needed for the reformulation of civic and religious traditions to create a new, healthier kind of individualism. The civic engagement and the it-takes-a-village mentality of the past, the communal and spiritual-centered approach of older religious traditions, but also the self-awareness and un-surrendering equality that has been brought about by modern times. Through the combination of these different ideologies and methods for lifestyle change, we can achieve "the golden mean."

Who is going to invoke this change is the only question left unanswered. Few deep within the different ideologies and communities will we willing to invite massive change. However, popular support for change from a fed-up and educated outside group could create the change we need to see or possibly create a new popular group altogether.

Kerwin Cleans Up

2009-10-27T07:04:00.000-07:00

Neil Kerwin is a professional, there can be no doubt whatsoever about that. He has the singular job of defining American as a school of its own, not Georgetown's backup, not GW part two. In doing this, he has the additional challenge of overcoming recent decades past of poor leadership at American. This Strategic Plan that he has created will serve, hopefully, to brand American in the way that it hopes to be seen, not in the way that other schools and popular culture have sought to brand it.

Kerwin is strong and polished. Whether it is within American's ideals or not, he realizes that American not only needs to BE excellent, it also needs to APPEAR excellent. Despite how clear it was that every answer he gave was calculated, Kerwin clearly knew that if he is going to protect, maintain, and improve American and its reputation. There were, however, certain questions I had with the ambiguity of the Strategic Plan:

It talks about equal access on pg 2, but also a form of student affirmative action on pg 8.

There is a lot of talk about American's liberal arts program, however, as of yet American does not have a formal liberal arts program.

On the note of liberal arts, knowledge is mentioned much more often than skills gained at American, implying that this school, which was once more for skills, is now aiming to be much more general and liberal arts oriented.

The main issue I had with the strategic plan was that it did not seem to represent a strong deviation from what American has been doing in the recent past. President Kerwin's response to this issue was extremely satisfying. He said that American needs to do better what it has already been doing as its main goal, especially working with alumni and defining the school.

President Kerwin seems like he has great potential to lift up this school thats been entrenched in scandal for over a decade. But what I came away with was not that it was a plan to revamp the school, but to redefine its image.

President Kerwin

2009-10-25T19:28:00.001-07:00

I really enjoyed having President Kerwin in class on Friday. I was a lot different than what I had expected it to be like. I thought that he would've focussed solely on the Strategic Plan, but he seemed to speak more on his personal life. I loved all his stories from his college life onwards...they made the listening a lot easier for me.

One thing that stood out for me was how sure he was about his life's choices. I remember him making a statement that he doesn't regret anything in his life. He seems totally content with his job and family. I admire him for this and I guess in a way I am jealous of him. I hope to one day achieve that sense of satisfaction as I get older. I know too many people who become unhappy with their lives and begin to regret choices they made.

Overall what impacted me most was this sense of contentment and satisfaction.

Reflection: President Kerwin!

2009-10-25T17:16:00.000-07:00

I thought it was really cool that we got to meet AU's president, Neil Kerwin. At first, I was a little skeptical when I heard we had to dress up in our usual "business casual" attired, but as soon as Mr. Kerwin began speaking, I understood why. This man had done so much for the school and had quite the job in recovering the school's appearance after the last two presidents. He is definitely a man I respect because he didn't talk to us like little kids, or in any way seem condescending. I do know, however, that everything he said was perfectly scripted and that he could not really be anything else but Neil Kerwin, the president of AU. I liked his story about his rise to success and he seemed pretty realistic in how we could achieve similar successes. Overall he was a pretty cool dude and I would be happy to listen to him again. I think he is doing a lot for our school, especially when our school has apparently gone through some scandal in the past.

Reflection: Lucky President Kerwin

2009-10-24T07:58:00.000-07:00

It was actually really cool to be able to sit down and hear President Neil Kerwin speak yesterday. Although obviously he wasn't candid, he was casual and calm, and seemed like a very approachable guy. I was expecting someone intimidating, and although when it came time to ask him questions we all sort of freaked (anyone else notice the change in the air to sheer terror?). Every time he answered a question, he did it to the best of his ability and was truly in earnest about everything he said.

He was incredibly positive. I guess he had to be, he wasn't going to put down his school; but even in his tone and how he described things, I found what he said to really be uplifting in a way. The only time it seemed that he wasn't speaking positively was in response to Justin's question. And even then, he didn't complain about what was wrong, he described what needed to and what was going to be done to fix it.

It was interesting to also hear President Kerwin's story of how he came to where he is today. And although he explained that his interest initially stemmed from his father's profession, it still seemed to me he came across the rest by chance. Maybe his personality subconsciously led him down the path he truly wanted, or maybe it really was just sheer luck that he ended up in the class freshman year and then was a TA a few years later. Some people sure do get lucky.

Question 8 - Of course AU is a community...

2009-10-21T15:57:00.000-07:00

American is a community, and it is a part of a larger community, and it contains smaller communities. It all depends on how you define a community.

We as AU students are all together, and participate in a government, attend classes and share the same buildings and resources. I would consider that a community. We are also a part of the DC community. Explorations is also a part of the Leonard community. And the L2 community. And the Explorations community.

My group discussed in class how many people determines when a group becomes a community. We had decided it was around four or five, but the more I think about it, the more I think it depends on the circumstances. There can be large groups of people, who may be connected by some common theme or place of residence, and can't consider themselves as a community. If there is nothing to relate to, and nothing that can bring them together in some way, then they are just people who live in the same space. And at the same time, perhaps two people live isolated from society, they could technically consider themselves a community as well.

So yes, AU is most definitely a community because we all have a pride and very strong common link of being a part of something big, where we live and learn and are constantly with one another.

Community

2009-10-21T14:49:00.000-07:00

I feel as though people in a community should have at least one thing in common whether it be location or hobby. This means that one person can be a member of several communities I guess, based on what factor we are focusing on.

A school can be considered a community because we have many things in common. It's like members of a family who have stories from the past which they can all relate to. Students at AU have similar problems such as, TDR food, studying, the library etc. These are the things which bring us together ... they create discussions which only members of the AU community will be able to participate in.

As I said before, one person can be a member of several communities, which means that AU can be made up of many smaller communities. The difference is what holds the people together. The athletics for example may form their own community because of that common interest.

Overall I guess I am a bit confused about this definition of a community. However, I do believe that AU is both a community as well as a home for many communities.

One World, One Community, One Love

2009-10-21T10:02:00.000-07:00

Community is a word that gets thrown around a lot in modern vernacular. There is the black community, the gay community, and hundreds of others that seem to simply be excuses to lump together minorities. However, there is always proof that these groups are communities: that they will come together in a time of mourning or need.

American University is most certainly a community. Granted, it is not the most tightly knit community, but neither is it the most aloof of communities. AU embodies many of the characteristics we discussed for communities in class. First, it has leadership. We will be speaking with said leadership next week. Also, it is a group of individuals who all share a common interest in higher education in the DC area. We're not all brothers and sisters, but we all have the uniting bond that we chose this place to go to school, or to teach, or to work, and therefore we are a community.

While AU is more of a middle level community, many of the groups within it are even tighter. Within dorms, with the residence hall associations and interdependence on floors, you have a tighter community even than a neighborhood would sport. On the other hand, AU is located within the larger DC community. We act as part of DC, by interacting with the city, organizing events such as the Dalai Lama, and participating in events such as the Equality March. AU, like its cohorts GW and Georgetown, are large actors in the DC community and help to define it the way that Joe Gorman does Suffolk.

To take it even farther, you could say that DC and every city and state in the world belong to the larger state, country, and world communities. Each actor, no matter how big or small, has a larger effect on the community or world around them. We are all united by the common thread or our humanity at least. I think that 9/11 was the best example in recent memory that there is, in fact, a world community. After 9/11, not just New York, not just the US, not just the English speaking world, everyone came together to mourn the tragedy (with the exception of those who committed it). That is true proof of a world community.

Is AU a community?

2009-10-20T20:18:00.000-07:00

AU is hard to define as either a community or not. When I think of a community, I think of a group of people who come together because of a commonalities they share. There are aspects of AU that I believe are not like a community at all. Students from all over the world have chosen (or were forced to choose) AU as their university, but because students are from all over, they tend to flock towards people like themselves. A good example is our University College. We make up a community within the larger population of AU. I think the AU is made up of smaller communities used to bring students together. Fraternities, clubs, sports, etc. all make up their own communities as well. There are leaders and there are members of these communities that strive to maintain the close-knit feel of the community. So I guess AU isn't a community in itself, but a large population with smaller communities in it.

Reflection: Still waiting to be homesick...

2009-10-18T17:03:00.000-07:00

It wasn't long ago that I was a complete emotional roller coaster. But the second I got to college that seemed to come to an abrupt STOP. I used to overthink everything, work myself into a frenzy, cry ALL THE TIME, and was basically out of my mind with feelings. Maybe it was my psychologist mother, but I was almost a little bit too in tune with how I felt at all times.

Not that I don't still feel, but it just feels like I have it under control. And that scares the crap out of me.....because I don't know if this means I'm just a ticking bomb, or if things are actually fine.

Everyone goes through those periods where something reminds you of home and you go "Oh" and have a bit of nostalgia, maybe a sigh or two. But I have yet to really really miss home. Because if I'm completely honest with myseslf--What's left for me at home, besides my parents and friends, my dog, and my house? Nothing! My life is here! Everything back home has changed. My best friends are in college, too. I am no longer in high school and they've moved on as well. If I went home, what would I do?

Of course I miss my queen-sized bed, and bedroom that's twice the size of my forced-triple dorm. Of course I miss my puppy and Obi-Wan (He's my desktop computer with dual monitors- my laptop now is Ki-Adi-Mundi, my old laptop was Qui-Gon. He died.). I obviously miss my parents. But, I'm doing all right. It's not perfect, but I can figure it out.

I've always hated change, too. But something always told me that I was quite adaptable. I may not enjoy the changes that occur, but I can conform to them fairly gracefully. It's just a new routine to get used to.

The only thing that gets me is the complete lack of privacy now. While I love people, I also like my alone time. I feel like now, when I'm not in class, not eating, and not with people, then I'm doing work. So either I'm doing work or I'm with people. I'm never by myself just perusing online, or reading a book for pleasure. And that's something that's really weird. Everyone wants to be so social, and if you're not, then you feel out of the loop. So you try to be with people as much as possible and it's hard sometimes! Sometimes I really hate people!!

But other than that, I doing all right. And I hope it stays that way because I'd hate to lose it. I like having things under control.

Advice

2009-10-18T16:49:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I went to the Newseum for my volunteer training session. The weather was absolutely horrible ... it rained all day, but the session was a lot of fun and very interesting. Thirteen people showed up, one of which was an elderly guy who had been volunteering at the Newseum for many years now. The reason I decided to blog about this is because of what we discussed over lunch. I sat at a table with the man along with two other AU students, and we ended up talking about his life and what he had done. It reminded me of the people we had come in to speak with us during class like Mary Hansen. It turns out that he had led quite an interesting life so far working for the Department of State in Foreign Affairs. He had worked in Africa and Germany to name a couple of places. His advice seemed to coincide with what everyone's been telling us ... don't worry too much about your future. He even quoted one of his friends who said that out of all the jobs he has ever had since he graduated, none existed while he was in school. One more thing that struck me was when one of the sophomores at the table said that his dad always told him that it is important to figure out what you don't like to study while you're in college. This drew me right back to Mary Hansen who gave us that exact tidbit of advice. Overall, we had quite an interesting discussion over lunch which really related to our talks in class.

Final Thoughts on Invisible Man

2009-10-17T09:09:00.000-07:00

Upon concluding our final discussion on Invisible Man, I still felt like I had fallen short. There were so many things we could have drawn from it, yet I am still unsure as to which of those were he most important. Was it all black versus white? Was it the individual versus the group mentality? Did the book imply that those who are invisible also have no friends? I felt like we discussed a lot of these ideas as possibilities, yet some of them are mutually exclusive.

First, we compared being invisible to being the president's press secretary. If that's true then it would be unlikely that invisible people would not have friends. If your job is making you invisible, as we argued the Brotherhood did to the narrator, then you are only invisible for those "on the clock" portions of your life. That the narrator did not have friends outside of work or before work (that we know of) it implies that there is something deeper at work.

These keys do not seem to imply, however, that it made the book purely racial. The narrator came across many other African-Americans who did not have the same problem with an identity that he did, even ones who tried to help him on the way. This could only imply that there was something special about him searching for his own identity in solitude, yet that he was constantly having identities forced upon him.

The narrators final revelation comes after having made the only choice he could think of in the situation, to betray the Brotherhood, but that turns out to be negative and leads to his first act of purely free will (though it was in a tight spot) to be a negative one. What does this say about shaping your own untested identity.

For now I must leave the ultimate meaning open. I must agree with Ana, that from a sociological standpoint, the book strikes one much differently than from a literary standpoint.

Invisible Man

2009-10-15T15:44:00.000-07:00

I enjoyed our conversation about The Invisible Man, but I felt like we never came to a final conclusion. Was joining the Brotherhood a good thing for the narrator or bad? I personally think it was necessary because throughout the novel, the narrator is trying to figure out his identity. I don't think he ever really knew who he was and had always done what his superiors had told him to do. From Mr. Norton, to Bledsoe, to Brother Jack, the narrator just goes with the flow. I didn't really understand the ending, but from what it sounds like, he finally has a grasp on who he would like to be. I was a little disappointed by the ending because it was unclear what he was going to do from then on, but I liked the idea of the book as a whole.

Now onto a tangent subject....

It's almost halloween!! I am trying to convince the other girls to be Fanta girls with me. I tried to be a Fanta girl one year and made costumes with my friends for weeks, but then on the day of Halloween I got sick and couldn't go trick or treating! I'm going home this weekend (which I'm so excited about) and hopefully I will get some more costume ideas. We should definitely have a floor halloween party or something!

Economics...what??

2009-10-11T22:54:00.000-07:00

I am not sure if it was the lack of coffee or lack of sleep, but when Mary Hansen came to speak to our class, all I wanted to do was fall asleep. Not only did she tell us what we already knew, but she turned our class into an economics class. I don't really want to hear that "we need to try different things to figure out what we want to do" or "you won't necessarily do what you thought you were going to do", etc. I don't really want to hear what is okay or expected of us, I want to know exactly what steps I will need to take in order to pursue a possible major.

This is the shortest blog I've ever written, but there wasn't much to reflect on this week. All I know is I'm kind of sick of these speeches because they are starting to blend together and I can't remember who said what.

The Planning Paradox

2009-10-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

From the moment we could communicate, we have been receiving conflicting messages. In one ear we hear "act like an adult," "consider you future," and "you better start planning now;" while in the other ear we hear things like "enjoy your childhood" and "live in the moment." This is the paradox of growing up: enjoying the moment in which we reside while, at the same time, planning continuously for our future. I have always been a fan of living in the moment, and Ms. Hansen's low profile lecture to our class made me feel a lot better about that viewpoint.

Ms. Hansen is not the first of our speakers to admit that her job came to her by chance, but she is one of the few who advocates wide-ranging experimentation over narrow planning for a college game plan. Many of our previous speakers have advocated narrow and tedious planning for the future, yet they themselves found their own careers out of the blue. I felt that Ms. Hansen's approach was more realistic for many different reasons: first, the majority of the jobs we will be applying for do not even exist yet, and second, the liberal arts approach to education, though useful for jobs, does not necessarily help you to know what you are passionate about.

Now, I must acknowledge that Ms. Hansen was speaking outside her area of expertise (which she only tangentially touched on), but in her case you can argue that she has not been blinded by the forced ideologies of the machine and is simply talking about her experience. We have seen that her experience of find a career by chance is by no means unique, so therefore we should regard her words as equally valid to those of a speaker from an education research program, career center, or what have you.

Reflection: I noticed a trend between our speakers

2009-10-11T15:21:00.000-07:00

So all of these guest speakers we've had come to class all seem to have the same story as to how they found their dream job: Chance.

Chance? Really? There are a lot of unlucky people in the world...Who's to say we won't be a part of them? I don't particularly enjoy the idea of not having any control over such a huge part of my future. I knew it wouldn't be a clear cut formula where you input problem-solving over here and add it to liberal arts and then subtract stupidity and get the ideal job. But still, there is no way I can go through college without a heading. I want to experiment but I don't want to just be blowing in the wind.

I'm also not a fan of the philosophy that nothing is a waste of time because you learned what you're not good at. I am a perfectionist. I don't do failure and I don't enjoy being bad at things. There's no way I would possibly reflect upon a failed class and say "Oh well, it was worth it. At least now I know I'm no good at it!" What a waste of my time and money. Maybe my way of thinking is naive, but I just can't call a semester of classes and money and time and work worth it if it was all torture.

Decisions

2009-10-11T14:59:00.000-07:00

Deciding what you want to do with your life is always difficult. I have always had an interest in so many different areas that it was hard choosing a major to study. After high school, I took a year off from school which worked out pretty well for me. It gave me time to think about my future and what I would really like to pursue. I ended up teaching at a primary level school and I loved it! This is the main reason why I chose psychology as my major. However, I am still thinking of attaching a minor or even a double major to that because of my wide range of interests.

Mary Hansen pointed out to us that we should try out a variety of courses. She said that realising our dislike in a particular area of study is just as important as discovering a passion for something. I really liked this statement and I totally agree with it. However, the main problem most of us saw with it was the lack of time for testing out different courses. I feel like I do enjoy my psychology classes but I also enjoy others which sometimes makes me wonder if I should be majoring or minoring in some of them.

I hope that soon I will be able to declare my major, whether it includes a minor or an additional major, and be satisfied with my choice. I guess I just need some time to try out different courses like Mary Hansen suggested before I am able to make this choice.

Question 7: Invisibility

2009-10-07T21:30:00.000-07:00

I do not think that invisibility is specific to race or ethnic background. The theme of race and what it means to be "black" during this time is apparent throughout The Invisible Man, but I don't think that it is the sole reason for the narrator's feeling of invisibility. Invisibility can mean a number of things. One could feel invisible because they don't have a voice or they may feel insignificant within a large number people. An example I gave in class was when I made the transition from high school to college. In high school, I felt that I could at least recognize everyone and for the most part they could recognize me. Here, in college, it is a totally different experience. There are now 6,000 undergrads and I feel invisible at times when I walk around campus and I don't even recognize someone's face.

As for The Invisible Man, there are numerous examples of the narrator feeling invisible. I think he is going through a bit of an identity struggle. In college he had no control over anything and had to put on a front in order to remain in school (a reason for his expulsion). When he joins the Brotherhood, he finally has a place to feel less invisible. They "value" his opinion and encourage him to speak out and become known. However, when they turn against him, he says, "Up to now, I had felt a wholeness about my work and direction such as I'd never known; not even in my mistaken college day. Brotherhood was something to which men could give themselves completely...and it was this sense of wholeness that guaranteed that it would change the course of history" (406). Here, it is evident that the narrator is struggling with a sense of abandonment and rejection. He is back to square one again: invisibility.

Question 7

2009-10-07T18:51:00.000-07:00

Being invisible during the narrator's time was probably mostly due to his race, which automatically limited his opportunities to stand out, or to pursue his true interests. Such things such as Dr. Blesdoe's letter, which the narrator thought was in good faith and was actually a ploy to deny him work, is an example of these times in which he lived. Part of the narrator's problem is his inability to formulate his own thoughts. Even as he gave his speeches, he only fed off of the audience's desires. He either directly or indirectly told was what to say and do--and that is what makes him invisible. This expectation of following orders was assumed during his time for most blacks by whites, but for the narrator I think it is particularly notable how he doesn't think for himself.

And how else can someone be defined than by their actions and thoughts? I think it's for this reason that the narrator is so invible. He has no identity, and nothing that makes him stand out or make him different from just another bump in the road.

Children of Men

2009-10-04T20:17:00.000-07:00

This was my first time seeing "Children of Men" from beginning to end. I had seen most of it with my mom when I was back home and I distinctly remember how it made me nervous. Honestly, the first time I saw the movie, it had a greater impact on me. This could have been because I was really tired on Wednesday. I remember hoping throughout the entire movie that something like this would never happen to me. The violence and darkness everywhere was really depressing. When I think of the people who had the 'privilege' of living in Britain, I wonder if that is any life worth living. It just goes to show how we value our lives; they are willing to live in the streets and dirty buildings rather than be killed. Makes you think about what you would do if you were in that situation.

ENFJ represent!!

2009-10-04T16:34:00.000-07:00

I think we all agree that the most exciting part of the presentation on personality types was the ending when we received our results from the Meyer Briggs assessment. After doing the activities our guest speaker gave us and looking over my assessment results, I found that they matched perfectly. This was really cool because it showed me I had a pretty good sense of who I was as a thinker and as a person.

I have an ENFJ type. This means many things, but an aspect that stuck out for me was that I am a big people person and I am good at understanding people. On the list of careers ENFJ personality types would do well in, the list was: facilitator, consultant, psychologist, social worker / counselor, teacher, clergy, sales representative, human resources, manager, events coordinator, sales representative, politicians / diplomat, and writer. Out of those listed, the social work/counselor, teacher, events coordinator, and psychologist stuck out to me. For someone who has no idea what I want to major in, these seemed the most interesting. I had already thought about being a social work for at-risk teens and families or a counselor of some kind. Now that I saw that these careers were good for people with my personality type, I felt a lot better about not knowing what I want to be.

I have been thinking a lot about what my future is going to look like. I still don't know what I want to do specifically, but I'm really glad I took this assessment because now I have careers I can picture myself pursuing.

On a different note, I started taking notes on for my ethnography (in the airport) but I suddently had no idea what to take notes on...any advice??

Cult of Personality Profiles

2009-10-04T14:22:00.000-07:00

This was not the first time most of us had taken the MBTI. We had a general idea of what it was looking for, and we had every chance to front and get whichever letters we wanted out of it. What the woman who came to talk to us about the test would have said, had she had longer to speak, is that your real MBTI letters are not the ones that came out of the test, but the ones that you wrote down in what you thought you were.

No one can tell you who you are. It was a Greek ideal, a Renaissance ideal, and individualism has bloomed into one of the defining characteristics of an American-style democracy. Those who may or may not hate us for our freedom, often really do dislike our rugged individualism. This self-made idea allows the MBTI to give you information on how you act in certain situations but, as she said, you can change you personality, act often outside of your profile, so nothing too definitive comes from these letters.

Aside from helping people who have not done a lot of intraspection figure out why they are not getting along, I find the potential to help for the MBTI to be limited. Our visitor told us that she and her husband, who both know a significant amount about the test, argue over whether he is unfairly pegged with his letters and whether he has changed recently. She herself said that she can no longer take it honestly because she knows the consequences of each of the questions towards her letters.

As I come down, I find that the MBTI is a useful tool for understanding yourself and maybe even how you relate to others, but it must be taken with a grain of salt, for you can define yourself to an extent that no test can match or measure.

Reflection: Why yes, I do love college, thanks for asking!

2009-10-04T13:07:00.000-07:00

Thinking on identity and putting up fronts, as always, coming home for my home's homecoming (haha, that sounds funny!) was really interesting. The new freshmen, trying to act all grown up now that they're in the high school; the new seniors, pretending they're so ready for college when they haven't even finished their applications; and then me and my friends, the newly graduated, who have to make sure they look well-put-together so that people can tell that we're happy and healthy.

I walked down the road with my best friend, stopping to hug basically anyone and everyone we knew, each time the same question being asked, "How do you like college?!" We would say we loved it, that we were having a great time, that classes were incredible, and that no, we weren't homesick. While perhaps most of that may have been true for me, it wasn't for my friend. And as we walked away she said to me "I love telling people how much I love college. It's so much easier than explaining why it sucks."

And honestly, how many random people really want you to come home only to hear how miserable you are? They don't, because it's a downer, and frankly it's also none of their business. It's said out of politeness, to show that you recognize someone's situation, but you're not really concerned about their well-being.

It leads itself to the question, Is it considered putting up a front if the person asking how you are, isn't really all that interested in your honest answer?

Fact v. Fiction in Autobiographies: The Million Little Pieces Effect

2009-09-29T19:09:00.000-07:00

It is easy to draw comparisons between Augustine's Confessions and Ellison's Invisible Man. As Professor Jackson said, they both were "written in a retrospective way, they are recalling past events and imbuing them with a significance that they might not have had at the time. In addition, both write autobiographically, in the first person; the main actor is "I" in each work." However, the significant difference, that one is fact and the other fiction, creates a rift between these two works in the parameters in which they can be effective. The limitation on Augustine's work is that his teaching stories and remembrances must be confined to the truth. On the other hand, Ellison is not confined to the truth and may twist his story here and there to convey his intended meaning. However, if Ellison crosses the line of believability, he loses his audience who would perceive it as ridiculous. Augustine can cross this line (though he does not really do so) because it simply makes his story more magnificent. Though if either stray too far from fact in their autobiographical works, they risk what I like to call the Million Little Pieces Effect.

The Millions Little Pieces Effect occurs when one's fact-based book or story strays so from fact so as to be unbelievable, yet, based on its genre, people believe it for a while. Eventually the story comes out, however, and the potential that the book would have had is a true piece of fiction is destroyed by the public outrage at it being published as fact or near-fact.

Based on these past couple of paragraphs, one can see where this blog is leading. Of course it makes a difference if something is fact or fiction. Fiction has potential that fact does not and vis versa. However, fact has the potential to make the unbelievable amazing, while fiction only makes it annoying. Had Augustine's work been a novel, it would have lacked any of the conversion power that it held as a true and amazing account of his life. Likewise, if Ellison's work was pure fact, it would be controversial to a fault, embarrassing and incriminating for those involved, and very likely repulsive to much of the general public. The fictional mask that it puts on allows Invisible Man to teach a lesson to all those who read it without bringing in the obvious extra issues that a true personal history would entail.

Analysis Question #6

2009-09-29T18:23:00.000-07:00

I think that Augustine's confessions/autobiography would have done much better if it were more like Ellison's book. I don't believe it really matters if a memoir is fictional or nonfictional as long is it is believable easy to read. Most of the reason I didn't like Augustine is because he spoke in a language that was hard to understand, and for me, the religious aspect was hard to relate to and I couldn't follow it as easily. The Invisible Man, on the other hand, is still not relatable but much easier to read because Ellison makes it sound more like a story. Even though the story is fictional, it is believable because at the time, this way of life was common. I also like how it is a memoir all the way through, whereas Augustine was much more philosophical. I Augustine, he complains about how he feels guilty for stealing pears and such, but in The Invisible Man, the main character is dealing with much more serious issues. This makes me like Ellison's memoir much more. How could I be interested in a man who feels guilty about stolen pears when the man in The Invisible Man is dealing with racism at its worst?

Analysis Question #5 (forgot to do this earlier...woops!)

2009-09-29T10:43:00.000-07:00

I have read other autobiographies before, and I have to say, not every single one was full of dramatic experiences or life-changing moments. Yes, there are the autobiographies about celebrities or other famous people that do contain these dramatic experiences, but what about all the autobiographies about friends or family? I have had to write autobiographies almost every year and had to peer review for them, so I have read a lot that were not by someone famous. One thing I found was that even if this person did not have the most exciting life experiences, it was still interesting as a reader to see their "back region" Writing can make anyone's guard come down, especially in autobiographies since it is about that specific individual's own life and experiences. They can be as honest as they want without worrying about seeing the reader's reaction. This is what grabs me as a reader. The more truthful the writer is and the more I can relate to the writer, the more I am interested in reading about their life.

I guess what I am trying to say is that you don't have to be the president of the United States or Oprah Winfrey to have an interesting autobiography that is worth reading. I think any kind of life would be exciting to read about because it lets you see how others perceive themselves and the world.

National Mall

2009-09-27T19:03:00.000-07:00

Wednesday's trip to the monuments was a lot of fun because I really love the National Mall. The only problem for me was that the sun was way too hot! I was partnered with Anna which went well. Anna and I sort of joined with Molly and Linda for most of the ethnography.

Something that we spent some time discussing was the question of why they picked Lincoln and Washington for the memorials. We discussed this for a while and came to the conclusion that Washington, you could say, started the country whereas Lincoln stabilised it.

To me, the entire National Mall is magnificent. I am not American, yet the Mall still causes me to become emotional sometimes. I love the quotes of the famous people along the walls and the ground. They all sound so intelligent. It's like how Katie told my group that her favourite part is the Martin Luther King quote in the ground near to the Lincoln Memorial. She said she would stand up and just stare at it for some time before moving on. The quotes definitely create a sense of identity I suppose, as they single out specific people who were instrumental in the history of USA.

Monumental Ethnography

2009-09-27T18:59:00.000-07:00

I thoroughly enjoyed our ethnography of the monuments with the assistance of members of the Board of Trustees. Our comparisons of the different memorials' subliminal messages made the advertising we see everyday seem honest.

The comparison of the Vietnam and World War II memorials was especially eye-opening. The grandeur and celebration present in the WWII memorial would at first strike one as odd for a war that led to the death of millions and millions of people. However, remembering back on the war, it actually represented a time of ultimate glory, moral authority, and unity. It was the real highlight of American history. By contrast, the Vietnam memorial showed the polar opposite for the time it represents. As one member of our group pointed out, it resembles a scar on our nation's capital when seen from above. Likewise, rather than representing unity, the Vietnam memorial recognizes each soul taken by the war individually, recognizing the complete absence of nationalism at the time.

All of the memorials, but especially these two, were products of their time and place: the US during a major war. But in talking about how these two factors can shape the identity of a memorial, I noticed on Tuesday how they can also shape the identity of a person. One of the Trustees, who shall remain nameless, asked me where I was from; I responded that I was from Kentucky; she likewise responded, "You're not in Kansas anymore, are you." Out of regard for Prof. Jackson's job security and in a testament to my own self-control, I did not respond to this comment in a way that I normally would have. However, I must argue that this woman is very likely a product of her time and location of development. In this case, probably a New England private school education, an east coast higher education, and a lifetime living in large-ish cities with movement limited to no more than three homogeneous New England states. These stereotypes (and that is what they are) base from my experiences that people from this situation (or from the main cities of the left coast) rarely acknowledge the presence of cities within the American mainland and appear to think that America is still an agrarian society since 90% of the US's inhabitable land must still be overrun with farm boys.

Ah what a digression: the beauty of blogging.

The extent to which this careless comment moved me to irritation and to expound equally careless statements the other way is a testament to the power of language (and irritation).

Reflection: Splurging on big stone monuments

2009-09-27T09:20:00.000-07:00

Why do we spend so much money on memorials when sometimes they don't evoke emotion? Well, doesn't it say something in itself that we spent so much money and time commemorating an event in history? Whether or not when someone looks at it and has a reaction, they are, in fact, looking at it. People know about the monuments and, generally, what they stand for. Even tourists who are so caught up with being in a new place, and just stand like dopes for a picture and then leave--they have to look back on those pictures, they have to explain what they stood in front of for someone else, they have to understand, somewhat, the significance. If there was no memorial at all, the opporunity to spread, even a hint of its importance, would not exist.

Memorial Identities

2009-09-26T16:06:00.000-07:00

I thought our ethnography of the memorials was a lot of fun because we had freedom to take note of what we wanted. I thought it was really interesting when we all came together that we all had different perceptions and experiences of the same memorials. This is what I narrowed our discussion down to:

My group decided to compare the 2 memorials: the Vietnam memorial and the WWII memorial. We noticed a few differences. 1) The Vietnam memorial had a somber feeling about it, and even looked like a scar upon the land (if you looked at it through satellite imaging). This scar-like image showed how the memorial was of a war that most people would like to forget and it literally is a "scar" on the nations identity 2) The WWII memorial was more of a celebratory memorial to remember a war that brought the nation together. Unlike the Vietnam memorial, it was built up and drew people from all over Washington to hang out around it.

The contrast of the 2 memorials could also apply to the behavior of the people around them. Some people, such as veterans of the Vietnam war, would take the Vietnam memorial more seriously. Some groups saw the majority of people gazing at the wall in awe, as if they were searching for names and some were merely taking in the impact of the memorial itself. With the WWII memorial, however, most people just went about their everyday lives and didn't really pay much attention to the memorial. It makes me wonder, was this the way the makers of these memorials wanted people to act? What exactly did they want people to get out of these memorials?

It's a Wonderful Life Story

2009-09-24T23:07:00.000-07:00

In a shocking aberration from normality, I have to conclude that, for once, I agree with Augustine. Some kind of significant experience, be it conversion, life-threatening, or what have you, is necessary for a good autobiography. One of the few possible exceptions to this rule would be someone who lived a relatively calm life, but discovered something exceptional or created some kind of new philosophy. Even in this case, it could be argued that such an experience would conform to a conversion or dramatic event of some sort.

The Main reason for this is fairly shallow and straightforward: an autobiography needs to be interesting to hold the reader's attention. People seeking first-hand accounts of another's life generally do not want to hear ramblings on insignificant minutia. Again, there are exceptions such as Marcel Proust, but many people would disagree with me to that extent.

On a similar thread, many people go to autobiographies for the wisdom of an event they have not experienced. Conversions, life threatening experiences, interactions with odd cultures all fit this description. Without having lived a singular life, it is unlikely that one would have the kind of hindsight wisdom on subjects that the general public would often seek autobiographical accounts on.

All of this is not to say that a good, yet relatively uneventful, life is unworthy of autobiography. I would venture to say that everyone's stories are so different that everyone's lives are worth an immortalized account. However, lives that lack the qualities mentioned above would likely produce autobiographies that would gather dust on the shelves at Barnes and Noble and inevitably end up in the clearance bin.

I would personally be thrilled to live a life that merits a good autobiography, characterized more by action than drama. However, I definitely do not feel that not having such a life would mark my time on earth as wasted. Like nearly everything else, this idea of what kind of life makes a good autobiography simply relies on the public opinion at the time, not any real, tangible qualifications.

Question 5 - I'll write my autobiography right now if you want.

2009-09-23T17:28:00.000-07:00

I think a lot of autobiographies and 'memoirs' may not necessarily be written by people who had something particularly spectacular happen in their life that merits a novel. I mean, how many books about an owner and his/her dog have there been? It's not necessarily living through something remarkable, but having something remarkable to say--and/or having a remarkable way of saying it.

It's exactly the same as fiction writing. Anyone can write the general hero plot (villain defeats hero, conflict, hero defeats villain, happy ending), or romantic plot (boy meets girl, boy and girl can't be together, conflict, boy saves girl, happy ending). It's about how you write it, and the insight you bring into it.

So, yeah I want to live the kind of life that would merit an autobiography--my life. Just the way it is is enough for an autobiography, I think. It just depends on selection of detail and creative writing and insight.

National Cathedral

2009-09-20T17:57:00.000-07:00

The National Cathedral was awesome. When we first arrived and we were walking towards the building, I was amazed at the size of it. I had seen pictures but I hadn't imagined it being quite so large and complex inside.

I loved how the cathedral was split into many different types of chapels which were all beautiful. The design and workmanship of the altars were stunning.

One of my favourite parts was chapel near the main altar. (to the left) I thought that it was so cool that it was one piece and not all separate pieces stuck together. Overall, the craftsmanship in that cathedral was admirable.

I actually was a bit confused about how the different faiths could share the cathedral but when I saw how it was divided; it made a lot more sense to me. (One thing that I learnt from the trip was that the Episcopal Church uses the Crucifix. I had always thought that it was mainly a Catholic symbol but in the cathedral there were many crucifixes visible.)

I think that the National Cathedral signifies unity due to the fact that it is for people of all faiths. It reminds me of how back home we generally tolerate other beliefs really well, as we have a history of varied cultures. We don't have cathedrals available for the use of multiple religions, but we live our everyday lives doing what this cathedral signifies, and that is appreciating other religions instead of ignoring them.

Reflection: Decision Making, Augustine, and Gorillas

2009-09-19T13:45:00.000-07:00

A question was presented during our discussion of Augustine on Tuesday that reminded me of something I had learned a few weeks ago.

The question asked was was it worth giving up happiness now because of a greater happiness that you believed (though could not prove) would be found after this life?

There was a study done on gorillas and decision making, where, if a gorilla were presented with his favorite food, and allowed to choose between one piece or two, he would undoubtedly choose two. Similarly, if the food was covered, but he saw which cup contained the food beneath it, he picked that one. The interesting part came when he was presented three choices: The middle was one piece of his favorite food, in plain view. And on either side were two cups: beneath one was nothing, and beneath the other were two pieces of food. But the gorilla didn't know which cup contained the extra food.

Now, this could serve as an analogy for the simple pleasures of life (the middle piece) and heaven and hell (the two outer unknowns). We don't know what we're going to get in the after life.

Now if this option were presented to Augustine, he would obviously deny the readily presented piece of food, in favor of his confidence that he would receive double in the afterlife for his effort. This, to him, is the moral, and correct way to go. What did the gorilla do?

He chose the middle. He was willing to settle for fear of not receiving anything at all.

I think this says a lot about humanity and animal instinct in general. It's not sin to enjoy out life now, it's simply primal instinct. We know that because what comes next is unknown, we should take advantage of what we have presented for us now. What if what comes later is worse? We will have suffered for nothing.

It's also interesting then that such a--literally--unnatural way of life and thinking can be so popular. People are so sure of something so unknown and so willing to give up opportunities or pleasures presented before them. I feel like we're almost thinking too hard. The gorilla didn't think twice.

Liberal Education: Indoctrinating Your Kids with the Socialist Agenda

2009-09-19T11:29:00.000-07:00

Though people who witnessed my questions at the time may not have seen it, I was really impressed by what Debra Humphreys had to say on liberal education. As college students sick of grades, we often complain that the institution does not really appreciate education for its own sake. I feel that the turn towards liberal education is a step towards that appreciation. However, the relatively static definition of "education" and "civic engagement" has caused led to the under-appreciation of our generation.

Ms. Humphreys showed liberal education as a progressive step away from the valuing of grades, test scores, and very specific (yet limited) knowledge. Instead she reiterated that businesses look less towards the C you got sophomore year and more at what you learned at your job or internship. This concentration on skills and concrete experiences, instead of academic hypotheticals meant to predict one's potential for success, is a smarter move for colleges. The other major concept behind liberal education that really impressed me was the concentration on civic responsibility and ethics. Stanley Katz's quote in Humphreys' article sums it up: "What counts, I think, is that their liberal education causes them to reflect on what it is they are doing for a living, how they are doing it, and what more they can do to live a fully examined life.” It's the fabrication of the long promoted idea that it is not about the money, but doing what is good and makes you happy.

As much as I appreciated the concepts presented by Ms. Humphreys, I did have some issues within her article and her presentation in that she seemed to sell short the quality of our generation. In her article, she referred to us as "larger, more diverse, and probably less well prepared for college-level learning than were cohorts in earlier eras." This seemed odd considering most of our generation learned more in high school than our parents did in college (if they went). During her presentation, Ms. Humphreys also referred to our generation's "decline in civic engagement." This definitely has some truth to it (especially if you consider protesting in the sixties as civic engagement), however, our generation has had more internships than any previous, the most community service, and the Obama campaign led to unseen numbers in young voters. The danger seemed to be in her generalizations.

Ms. Humphrey's explanation was clear, well-crafted, and satisfactory. The percentages of kids in our generation that go to college is extremely high. We send kids to college whether they're ready or not. In previous generations, only those best-prepared to go, were able to. Therefore, our top 10% are extremely qualified as I explained earlier, but our average student did not necessarily get the preparation that they needed. Additionally, the expectations to compete in the modern world are much higher and more complicated than those for the world of previous generations. In these regards, our generation is nearly impossible to compare to previous ones.

LEAP for joy

2009-09-18T08:23:00.000-07:00

As much as I think the talk about the importance of liberal arts and the idea for LEAP were helpful and informative, I think the speaker herself, Deborah Humphreys, was a little too into herself. She would say things like "I knew I was smart" or "I went to a rich school" or "I only made it to where I am today...". I thought the organization she worked for had a good motive and she made a lot of great points about college students today. I agree that it is vital to take different types of courses because the job market changes quickly and we should develop many different skills in order to prepare for it. As someone who has no idea what I will be doing in the next 4 years, I thought what she was saying was encouraging. I think she could have presented it a little differently to make it more interactive and less "all about her" but overall it was a good presentation.

Memory and the Soul

2009-09-16T21:33:00.000-07:00

The article on Alzheimer's really touched me. I have heard stories like this one many times but I never cease to be shocked every time I think about how someone could lose their memory. Remembering the past is something which I value a lot! This is why I love photos and why I tend to save things like ticket stubs, programs from events and other random stuff.

My grandfather suffered a couple strokes and as he aged, he began to lose his memory. I actually grew up never really knowing him that well because of this. Even though he was stuck in the past, I still got a good sense of his character; he was still Benedict Winchester.

I believe that even when memory is lost, the soul is still there and this is what makes a person. In the article, the woman remembers to go to midday mass although she has lost most of her memory. This example is not the only one that has ever been written about. I have read the book, "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sacks and there is a story in it of a man who suffered from a disease which allowed him to remember the past vividly but to have no recollection of the present or near past. Sacks asked the caregivers at the Home whether they thought that the patient still had a soul and they told him to observe the guy in the chapel. Sacks did so, and was amazed at how focused the man was at mass.

These 2 people probably represent many others who demonstrate the way in which people may lose memory but not lose certain personal traits which people recognise them by. I believe that memory does matter a lot to identity because your history has a lot to do with who you are as a person; however I do not think that memory is solely responsible for one's identity. Even when people can't remember their past, their past is why they are who they are at present.

Sacks, Oliver. The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat: And Other Clinical Tales. New York: Touchstone, 1998.

Have We Met?

2009-09-16T20:44:00.000-07:00

It seems insensitive. The Alzheimer's article refers to memory loss as death before death. Augustine equates memory with remembrances, ideas, skills, emotions, and every sentient thing that makes us human, yet that cannot be all there is, can it? Unfortunately, I think it can. Can you still be you without memories, ideas, skills, emotions, and all of those other things provided to you by this abstract concept known as memory? Now, the questions seems straightforward, and almost simple.

Our identity centers almost entirely on our perceptions of what is going on around us and our reactions to these things based on past experiences and reactions. Hence, without our memories, we have no identity; there is nothing left that defines us as a person (with the possible exception of the disease/memory loss). To make a rather unorthodox comparison. It is like a house versus a home. If a family lives in a house, gives it character, and makes memories there, then it has become a home. However, on the opposite end, if a family leaves a house, the lights are on (or off) but no one is home, that house has no character - no identity.

Augustine might disagree with me on this one. He argues that, as we live and experience, we begin to tap into this innate or universal memory. If this is true, it is something that Alzheimer's patients would still maintain, as they are living in their memories much of the time. However, for someone who has lost his or her memory entirely, Augustine would be at a loss to protect them. First and foremost, without any recollection of their most basic experiences, they would be unable to know/come into contact with the Lord. Augustine considers the memory, with its ability to hold skills and memories, as the aspect of humanity that most separates it from "beasts." Considering this notion, he would consider anyone without their memory to be incapable of making any more of a connection with God than (as he says) horses.

Personally, I could no longer consider myself me any longer if I were to lose my memory. Everything that defines our non-visible selves is based on the memory. If we do not remember how to act when faced with a certain situation, we have lost part of our identity. If that same situation is played over a hundred-fold, then we have lost ourselves. It is an extremely sad prospect, but, for once, I think Augustine would agree with me.

Question 4 - No Memory = Who Am I Again?

2009-09-16T20:34:00.001-07:00

This is my favorite. If I had any talent in biology I would be studying the brain like crazy, because the concept of memory blows my mind.

Here's a question I throw back at you, before I answer this one:

(It's great when I need something paradoxical to think about!)

Who would you be if you traded your mind with someone else's? Would you be yourself with someone else's memories? Or would the other person be living through your body?

Anyway...

No, you would not be you without your past. Memories are what make up the human mind. They're what make up everything. Because if you can't remember it, did it ever really happen?

A part of the Alzheimer's passasge that really wrenched my heart was when the author was talking about her aunt asking her mother if she remembered her, and her mother sadly shaking her head. Think about all the times shared between siblings, inside jokes, stories, adventures--and here is that sibling telling you she doesn't remember you. She doens't remember anything. It just does something to the credibility, I think. It makes you realize how intangible the past is.

Because your past, who you are, is all because of what you remember. It's not the facts that matter--anyone can tell me my name is Allison Taylor. But how many people can tell me that when I go skiing I do it becuase of the thrill, and when I think about skiing I feel that exciting twist in my stomach? Or when I play piano my hands just lazily fall on the keys like no big deal and when I mimic it on the table, my fingers fall in the same exact places as on a keyboard?

Mannerisms, facial expressions, reactions, they're all due to previous memories. You can tell me my name but that means nothing without the memory behind it.

Memory Loss

2009-09-16T18:48:00.000-07:00

The article about Alzheimer's disease hit close to home for me because last year my grandfather, Abe Shmerling, passed away from this particular disease. The disease, like the article said, takes away the victim's long term memory first and eventually their short term memory. The disease is not only hard for the patient to accept, but for the patient's loved ones, it is hard to cope with as well.

"Would you still be you if you couldn't remember your past?"

At first, I quickly said no. How could you be the same person if all the experiences you had in the past were lost forever. My grandfather was a phenomenal photographer as a young man, but as the disease progressed, he forgot how to use a camera. His identity as a photographer was lost forever. But then I thought about the other aspects of identity. Identity isn't just your experiences, but it is also what defines you (i.e. characteristics, interests, likes/dislikes, etc.).

My grandfather had always been a soft-spoken, yet goofy man. He loved to make people laugh and could lighten the mood with his silly behavior. For instance, he used to take my thumb into his fist, and while pretending to smack my thumb, he would slide his fist up and "miss" my thumb. It is hard to visualize, but this was something he did with all his grandchildren to make them smile. I remember in the last stages of the disease, I visited him in the nursing home. He was sitting there quietly staring into space and when he saw us, his eyes lightened up. I went over to sit with him and before I knew it, he had my thumb in his hand and he pulled the same little trick he did when I was younger. He was still the same Abe Shmerling he was years before.

In a way, losing one's memory really does take a large part of one's identity away. But not all of it. You can still retain all of one's characteristics that make up one's personality or one can even perform certain behaviors that had been ritualistic in the past (i.e. the thumb trick or in the case of the author's mother, washing the dishes).

Portrait of a Thriller

2009-09-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

Our visit to the National Portrait Gallery and subsequent discussion in class made me realize just how much portraits allow people to present their desired front. Then when I was sitting through a particularly boring economics lecture, I realized that being a lecture hall professor allowed something similar. With such a large class, the professor is essentially a fixture posed at the front of the class, permitted to portray himself in whatever way he sees fit.

My economics professor, who will go unnamed, paints a particularly interesting portrait of himself when presenting to our early-morning drone. Giving little personal information and having minimal back-and-forth with the students, he can be whoever he wants to. He (or maybe she) begins every class with "good morning" in some new and exotic language. Subsequently, he proceeds with the day's humdrum lecture with such fantastic inflection that it appears as if he is not the economics teacher that would be his job description, but a world traveller (as his affinity for language would imply) who has come to our class to recount the epic adventures of economists long passed and from faraway lands.

Is this a front? Who knows. Is it simply corkiness and a well-meant attempt to liven up a dry introductory class? Probably. But my inability to discern what exactly this professor is trying to pull makes the front (or lack of one) all the more perplexing and effective. This is real world Goffman.

Portrait Gallery

2009-09-13T20:23:00.000-07:00

It's no secret that I love photos, which is why I was so excited about our trip to the Portrait Gallery. The trip was everything I had hoped for and more. What I didn't expect was the amount of history that the gallery held. I loved the was in which each portrait told someone's story and even though I may not have known all the subjects and their importance in American history, I left the museum with new information.

I really loved it when the tour guide quizzed us on the Washington portrait =) She was intelligent and I think she did a great job. The way she made us analyse certain pieces by asking us questions about what we saw in the portraits was really interesting. (For example, with the Rosa Parks piece)

One of my favourite portraits was the one of George Washington Carver. As we entered the room and I turned to see that portrait, it really caught my attention. It evoked a sense of peace and simplicity. I have to say that I don't know much about him but from what I read on the caption, I had already understood just by watching the painting. It was beautiful.

I was a bit disappointed that we only had enough time to see a minor portion of the gallery. I did, however, end up going back to the museum on Friday with my cousin. On my return trip, I saw areas with viewing benches. I just thought I'd mention that since we spoke about the absence of these in the areas we looked at.

I hope to make it back there soon because I still haven't seen the entire gallery.

Reflection: History is not art, but art has history.

2009-09-13T11:42:00.000-07:00

Our tour guide insisted that the National Portrait Gallery wasn't an art museum and that it should be taken more as a history museum. Well, I hate history.

But I really loved the National Portrait Gallery. There's always going to be history represented in art, especially when depicting people and true events. But there's so much more to be appreciated and gathered from the art. To so strongly say that it's not an art museum is almost offensive. Especially when she took us around and had us using many of the same techniques for viewing art that you would use in a *real* art museum. What kinds of symbols are represented? How does the color scheme affect the mood? Do the brush strokes seem contemplated or quick? Was is it a large or small brush? Why? What does the angle of the portrait tell about the person? Their expression?

These aren't aspects of history, but art. In fact, most of the history is not learned from these portraits if you didn't already have a background in the issue. While Kennedy's portrait was drastically different from the rest, no one would ever go up to it and say "Oh, this must have been this way because JFK didn't like sitting for portraits. " You would say "The hurried, large brush strokes, cool colors and relaxed pose maybe indicate he was not as uptight and stuck on tradition." I was really taken aback by how many times she wanted to wipe the belief that this was an art museum. It was one of the coolest art museums I've been to yet in DC.

'Advertisement' for Catholicism

2009-09-09T23:11:00.000-07:00

I believe that this book can be a sort of "advertisement" for Catholicism. Augustine uses examples from his life to show the reader how one doesn't have to be perfect to become a Catholic. I think that if we look at it as an "advertisement" then this is a great punchline since this idea of the necessity to be perfect, is what pushes many people away from Catholicism.

Augustine confesses his sins, such as his lust towards women in the book. If we look at the audience as being people who want to find their faith but are afraid that because of their sins, they will not be accepted by God - then Augustine saying that he committed these common sins is aimed to encourage the audience. I say this because Augustine is now Saint Augustine even though he himself is guilty of sin, which just shows the reader that he can still be accepted into the faith ... once he confesses.

Overall, I think that Augustine's is advertising redemption in God. His life story proves that a sinful person can be forgiven; no matter how deep into sin he/she may feel they are.

3B: Sin and Salvation

2009-09-09T21:48:00.000-07:00

Augustine's prolific, nay, continuous and mind-numbing use of the idea of "sin" does little more than limit his range of appeal to his audience. By referring to all in which he has partaken outside of the church as sin, and by presenting the church as the way to escape sin, Augustine has cheapened, in a sense, what should be a much larger discussion.

Sin has the potential to scare a wider audience into pursuing the catholic faith for the sole purpose of salvation. However, in class there was a lot of doubt as to whether Augustine was addressing a larger common audience where this would be effective. Should he be, as we suspect, writing to his fellow officials in the church for the purpose of writing off his past as "sin," then its excessive use seems more of a cop out. Instead of delving into the complexities of theology that could bring his earlier life to the realm of the morally inconclusive. Instead, Augustine chose the simpler argument: I was wrong, I sinned, and I'm sorry.

People searching for a new kind of ideology or timid about the benefit of being catholic receive no incentive to pursue their interest further from Augustines first few chapters. Instead, they are offered salvation and forgiveness of sin purely by the renewal of baptism. This load-lightening prospect seems at once gentle and also irresponsible as it seems to promote the kind of deathbed conversions that were common at the time. If you are renewed from any and all sin that was simply that in your early life, there is no incentive to become the good Christian model advocated by the church but left aside in Augustine's narrative.

So it is debatable whether Augustine's concentration on sin limits the numerical appeal of his argument, but, ideologically, it certainly does. However, there is still much of the book left for him to address all that encompasses his faith, aside from sin and salvaton.

Question 3 - Catiline and Pears

2009-09-09T20:02:00.000-07:00

Augustine goes throughout the beginning of his text accounting for his sins, taking blame, and explaining that all of his positive attributes are because of God. This is all well and good, with a nice message to people that if they don't sin, and confess their past sins, and just follow God, everything will work out, but he seems to be glorifying himself. You know, like when parents say "Don't worry, son, when I was your age I didn't always get things on the first try, either!" Like, Augustine is seen as someone so infallible in the eyes of the public that saying these things will come as a huge shock. Which maybe for their time, it did.

But I still can't get over this pear-stealing example. And why in the world he compared it to murder. He seems to be implying that his crime of stealing apples was a worse offense than murdering someone because "No one would commit murder without a motive" and that was just what he did with the pear. It's so grossly melodramatic. Especially with such a false statement.

He backs up this odd assertion with a reference to "Catiline." And I may have looked up this text, called The Conspiracy of Catiline, by Sallust, during class... Sallust describes a great criminal of his time, known as Catiline, and his life and trials. One trial in particular is what the section referenced in Confessions. Augustine says that even Catiline had a motive, yet, "If a motive for crime did not readily occur, he incited them, nevertheless, to circumvent and murder inoffensive persons." [XVI]

This would imply to me, that Catiline had no motive, and he then pretended to have one in order to kill. Augustine says that Catiline killed for the grandeur and wealth, and that "not even Catiline himself loved his crimes." This is a stretch though, if you ask me. To equate the desire for wealth with loving another's wife as a motive for murder, I think is not possible. While both are lousy reasons to kill, to determine that killing a lot of people will result in wealth and grandeur is a much more complex way of thinking.

Meanwhile, if you wanted to go with Augustine and say that Catiline had a legitimate motive, then Augustine stealing pears was motivated by his desire for his friends' acceptance and his own personal thrill.

Link to Sallust-The Conspiracy of Catiline (the section referenced is [XVI]): http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_sallust_catiline_1.htm

Augustine on "Sin"

2009-09-09T19:17:00.001-07:00

To be honest, I think Augustine sounds a bit melodramatic. I mean, he is freaking out about stealing a pear? Going to a public show? I don't really understand what he is really trying to get at with this idea of "sin".

Someone brought up the point that he might just be confessing these "sins" to make what he's going through more relatable, and maybe it will cause others to stop sinning as well. It's hard to say exactly what he's trying to get at. Is he truly just trying to relieve himself of guilt? Does he really feel guilt for what he did? Why is he confessing all this to the reader, does he want the reader to respond in a certain way?

I think for me, Augustine's ideas about sin don't really appeal to me. I have never stolen pears, but I highly doubt I would think twice about it, or freak out as much as Augustine. I also think that it is hard for me to understand what Augustine is getting at because of my religious background. I'm actually very unobservant of Judaism and don't really believe in God, so it is hard for me to understand a lot of what Augustine refers to. I'm not even sure if it matters or if I'm just struggling on my own.

I don't think Augustine's ideas of "sin" helped his product at all and if anything made me like the book less. It made him sound overly dramatic.

I <3 The Portrait Gallery (Reflection)

2009-09-09T15:36:00.000-07:00

I'm not gonna lie, I was definitely not looking forward to going to the portrait gallery at first. In my head, it was going to be full of portraits of people from 100's of years ago who no one remembers and no one really knew about. The tour was going to be led by a 100-year old lady who devotes her life to portraits and takes an hour explaining each portrait.

This was not the case.

For one, our guide was extremely nice and she seemed really enthusiastic about her job. I liked that she made the tour interactive and kept it short enough to hold our attention.

We were asked to pick our favorite portrait and explain why and how it had to do with identity. I honestly thought each painting was unique in its own way and each had a different identity. The pictures I put up are a few pictures I took today of a few of my favorite ones.

The portrait of Abe Lincoln stood out to me because it had such an interesting story behind it. In terms of identity, Lincoln was always thought to be serious, and rarely did he ever smile. No other picture in the world can you find him smiling, but here in this portrait, he has what seems like the beginning of a smile. This made me think back to Goffman and the idea of the "fronts" people put up. Lincoln's front was a serious president who never showed emotion. In this picture, it is as though his "back region" has been captured and he no longer is a serious president, but an average man. Lastly, I thought the story behind the crack in the picture was cool because different people

Then there is the portrait of JFK. I thought the story behind this portrait was interesting as well, which along with its unusual style, is what attracted me to it. JFK wanted to have the quickest portrait done of him and he hired a woman. I think it is interesting to think about how in paintings, you can never really tell the identity of the painter him or herself. I found myself surprised that it was a woman, not because I didn't think painters could be women back then, but that I would never have known unless I knew the story behind. It was inspiring that this woman became so famous just by drawing a series of portraits. The painting itself was amazing.

Overall I had a good time today learning about not only the stories behind each of the portraits, but learning about how to interpret them. Each one had its own story and the symbolism was insane.

Dreams and Aspirations

2009-09-06T19:17:00.000-07:00

Dana Walker's talk on Friday was motivational. It was informal and she shared with us her life story and some pointers as to how to focus on your goals.

As she spoke to us, I was amazed at how much she had achieved in life. She had overcome so many trials to reach where she is now. This really inspires me to really aim towards my goals so that I may be able to achieve as much or even more than Dana Walker has so far.

One point I remember her making, was in response to a question regarding how to choose our majors/careers. She said that she made her decision based on what people around her told her she was good at.

I have always been a dreamer. I love to think about the future. My decision on a major took a long time and it still might change. My major right now is Psychology but I am interested in so many different areas as well. I trust that somehow my life plan will unfold, probably with the aid of observations made by those people that get to know me. They may notice that I am particularly good in a certain field or have to right personality for a job.

I hope that one day I will be able to share my life story so as to inspire others.

Reflection: Feminism bothers me.

2009-09-06T09:30:00.000-07:00

Of course I want men and women to be treated equally. When they make the same achievements, they should be rewarded the same. When they perform at the same level, they should be promoted to the same level. I'm not saying that when everything is equal, that men should be favored over women.

BUT.

Things aren't always equal. Sorry. Men and women are scientifically different. Men are more authoritative, women are more sensitive. Men are impulsive and act with force, women are intuitive and act with caution. There are always exceptions. And those exceptions are accounted for. But it can't be a general rule for everyone because it's not.

And, if you really want to revert this back to Goffman, because of these differences, it already puts preconceived notions in people's heads. Be honest, if you were walking home alone at night in an empty area, and a very big and buff man was walking your way, you'd be freaked, right? Is that sexism, because if your saw a big and buff woman you wouldn't be nearly as scared?

No. It's science. We're naturally programmed to be on the lookout for certain things. And while there's always exceptions, they're not always the case.

So while in Dana Walker's talk, I felt outraged when her pay was less than that of a man equal to her, I don't think it was grounds to start a movement.

And people always make the women the victim, saying that women police officers don't get the respect they deserve (which is, again, because of the science that women are more sensitive and less strong). While they should be respected, and while many policewomen are in fact very strong, most criminals will still be glad it wasn't a man who beat them down.

And then on the same note, dying patients in hospital beds are way less likely to reveal their emotions to a male nurse. Also common sense, because women are the sensitive and thoughtful ones, and men are more forceful. Most patients will be glad it wasn't a man handing their wounds and sticking them with needles.

So yeah, there's exceptions, women who scare the living crap out of you, and men who could make a butterfly giggle, and yes, those people will excel in their fields, and therefore must be rewarded without discrimination. Absolutely. And to reverse that, the man who could make a butterfly giggle would be not be a respected police officer. The same is with the scary woman wanting to be a nurse. So then is that discrimination, too? Because now I'm getting confused.

But if you are in a field where you're working with people, even if you're putting out the same effort, and those criminals just don't respect you (if you're a man or woman) and those patients feel uncomfortable with you (if you're a man or woman), then why should the administration feel that you are an asset?

And falling back to Goffman one last time, if you want to excel in a field where the sex odds are against you, perhaps putting up a front that makes you more authoritative or sensitive might be in your best interests. Because it's not relly the gender that's the issue, it's the presence you give off.

YAY Danna Walker!

2009-09-04T10:57:00.000-07:00

So I had a really weird reaction to today's discussion with our guest speaker, Danna Walker. I walked away feeling sad, but not in a bad way. Danna kind of reminded me of my own mom and I think it just made me realize how much I miss her.

My mom has always been huge on women being strong and independent because she had to be that way when she was younger. She was an army brat and moved around a lot and because she was living with a single mother at the time (her mom and dad divorced when she was very young), she kind of had to grow up on her own.

What Danna and my mother have in common is definitely their drive to not only be the best they can be, but also to make sure their children are doing their best as well. Because my mom did not have a lot when she was growing up, she pushes independence on me and always looks out for my best interests. She pushes me to do better, even when I don't feel confident in what I'm doing. I'm sure Danna, with two kids in high school, must do the same. She started out from very little and had to work her way up. She was dropped into college and had no idea where to begin but managed to survive and become successful anyway.

When I first read Danna's blog, I thought she would be self-absorbed and that she would spend the whole time bragging about her achievements. Although she did talk about herself the whole time, I think she did a really good job on focusing on the class as well and linking it to our study of "identity" and who we are. She answered all of our questions thoroughly and she made me feel better about the fact that I have no idea what I'm doing career wise in the future. I think she did an awesome job.

Reflection: Danna Walker - Striding Woman Society

2009-09-04T09:42:00.000-07:00

We all read Danna Walker's blog post. Some of us found her story strong, some found it self-righteous, others found other things. We all prepared questions to ask her, but when she walked into the classroom, one had to wonder if she should have done some of the equivalents.

Prof. Walker appeared to me to be a walking paradox. She publishes a blog of personal essays, accessible by anyone with an internet connection, yet she was visibly hesitant when being questioned on what she had written. She exemplified this in saying consistently throughout the session, "I'm a little uncomfortable just standing up here and talking about myself." Understandable, who wouldn't be? Answer: someone who volunteered to do it, someone who has written about and speaks ad nauseam about their life and accomplishments.

Aside from the perplexities on this issue, I found Prof. Walker very interesting. She, like my mom, was old enough to be a militant feminist and, from hearing her speak, lived up to her abilities. Her experiences in the area, especially in work, brought her reasons for interest into perspective in a way that her blog failed to do.

Another thing that I found confusing was her take on modern journalism. Unlike almost any other journalist that I have met, she likes the turn towards internet based wikinews that so many others fear. Citing that newspapers had created their own downfall by becoming to corporate and superficial, Walker said that current news readers simply needed to be able to sift through all of the ideological BS that is found on blogs. This seems like a valid point paired with a useful skill, however, current bloggers find much of their world news through traditional news outlets and use their personal blogs to reiterate and comment on them. Without these traditional, corporate news outlets spending money to place skilled journalists in foreign countries, it will be tough for our current transitional stage of news consumption to continue.

All considered, the most interesting and helpful thing that I found to come out of Prof. Walker's visit was not part of her feminism or life story, but her list of favorite writing exercises. These included:

Writing your own obituary to see how you want your life to turn out
Writing your thoughts to hash them out and to discover if they are as good as you initially thought

Mildly cliché, yes, but helpful. It was the life wisdom of Prof. Walker that I found most inspiring, not her awards, achievements, etc. Walker's wisdom included:

Think about your time spent drinking. When I stopped drinking, I started traveling and getting degrees. I'm not saying don't do it, but think about how much.
Everyone in college is insecure, no matter how confident they seem. Everyone is looking for who they really are.

In the end, I must say that I come down in the middle. What I expected from Prof. Walker is not exactly what I got, but I got what I did not expect.

Afghan

2009-09-02T21:32:00.000-07:00

My great grandmother (GG) is 97 years old.

She is SUPER old, but still managed to knit an afghan for each of her grandchildren and I happen to be the last one. It's tradition that she make an afghan using the colors of each of the schools her grandchildren attend. For example, she knit my sister a purple and white afghan before she went to college at Northwestern University (their colors happen to be purple and white...what a coincidence!). Mine is multi-colored, obviously not American's colors, but because GG is so old, she had to make it before I had made my final decision on what college to go to.

When I look at this afghan, a few aspects of my identity come to me.

1) Its multi-colored-ness expresses my silly/crazy/goofy side. Anyone close to me (sometimes not so close to me) can tell you that I am not usually a serious person. I enjoy being loud and obnoxious sometimes. It's who and how I am.

2) When I look at it, I see GG but I also see my whole family. Family is a huge part of my life and is something I could never live without. By bringing this afghan to college, I bring my family. The afghan brings me warmth and comfort just like my family.

Joe saw my afghan and said "it brings you warmth and security". This was right on point. It does both those things and this is something important about my identity. I find comfort when I feel loved and secure.

I am writing this post at 12:55am...I'm going to bed. WITH my afghan.

Response #2: My Identity

2009-09-02T15:48:00.000-07:00

If I had to decide on one thing that I brought with me to feel at home, it would have to be my crucifix along with a religious poster. As a matter of fact, the first thing I put up in my room was my crucifix on the wall above my bed. I have always identified myself as a religious person and I find pride in that aspect of my life. It's who I am.

I have been attending Mass at Kay Center since I arrived at AU and it really makes me feel at home. Religion is so universal. I love how you can be so far away from home and yet when you go into a place of worship, you feel welcomed and connected to those who share your beliefs.

When I asked my roommate about it, she said that it shows that I'm a religious person which goes along with what I said. Being identified as a religious person is not something I'm ashamed of although many people do try to hide their faith.

I love who I am and I'm proud to let others know.

Response #2: I Love You and Buddha Too

2009-09-02T09:08:00.000-07:00

Seven inches tall while sitting in the lotus position, this bronze-brushed Buddha can keep me calm. His hands clasp together and that knowing smile lingers on his face and he sits pensively around the tea light in front of him.

As odd as it may seem, my little piece of home that I brought to American with me is represented by a 7-inch statue of the Siddhartha himself. This Target special piece of my life is actually representative of my eclectic room at home, which contains other statues of Buddha, prayer flags, a painting of Gandhi and other various emblems of mildly conflicting philosophies. To me, this faux relic represents my immense interest in various (peaceful) philosophies that originate around the world, as well as my personal belief in universal truth and religious coexistence. I am uncomfortably aware, however, that the presence of various religious and philosophical symbols can also be read as the mark of a poser fronting as a religious eclectic while actually sporting symbols of opposing philosophies.

Upon consultation with my roommate, he says that my little Buddha says that I am in touch with my inner self, that I like peace and harmony with the world and others, and that I think a lot about life. Others say that I am zen-like, like to be calm, and like to be surrounded by things that are as calm as me.

I tend to hope that my roommate is right and that I come off as a calm person rather than a conflicted one. I am glad to be reassured that the Buddha is performing its intended identity, though I feel guilty in referring to it for a tool of identity.

Question 2: Topper's Horseshoe

2009-09-01T21:16:00.000-07:00

This summer I basically moved out of my house and into the dusty stable of a twenty year old chestnut thoroughbred horse.

I used to ride when I was younger, and then picked it up again two and a half years ago, regretting ever having stopped. It wasn't long before I started working at the stables as a tack girl (aka slave girl) cleaning the horses, preparing them for lessons, cleaning saddles, and all other odd and dirty jobs. Pulling out ice from the water buckets with my bare hands in the middle of winter was one of my favorites.

But it was worth it, because I loved those horses so damn much.

I was determined to save the money to lease my own horse before college, if only for a month. It ended up being a little bit more because the staff snuck me some extra days, but however long it was, it was possibly the best time of my life.

His name was Topper, and I fell in love with him before I even opened the stall door. He was sweet and goofy and seeing him made me forget everything else in the world.

I cried harder on my last day with Topper than I did for college. There really can't even be a comparison between the two.

And for that reason, one of Topper's horseshoes, which came directly from his foot, is now hanging above my bed. It's meant show everyone that I not only love horses but one horse in particular, and that I have more than an interest in the animals but a real passion for them.

According to my roommate, the fact that the horseshoe is so worn means that it wasn't just bought at a store, but was actually from a horse at the stables. It means that I love horses and riding is something that I miss doing. I think that that was basically my intention, becuase I suppose it's really not obvious to people that there is one horse in particular that I miss the most! I mean, there's only so much information you can gather from a horseshoe.

Reflection #1

2009-08-30T17:23:00.000-07:00

During class we spoke about the word 'identity'. I think that identity is what makes someone or something unique. Your identity is who you are internally and externally. I was born into a Roman Catholic family and even though I guess it was chosen for me, I love it and I identify myself as a Roman Catholic. I remember in my First Communion classes, the first thing you learn to say is, 'I am special. I am a child of God.' This is what comes to my mind every time someone asks that question, 'Who are you?'.

What we realised in class is that Goffman doesn't focus on those aspects of a person that are special to each one of us. He gives general theories about people and, therefore, some of them appear to be cynical. I have to say though that I agree with his idea that everything we do is a performance. It sounds as though he's trying to say that we are pretending to be something that we're not, but I think it's that we either consciously or unconsciously want to make a certain impression on those around us.

When we wake up in the morning, we decide what we're going to wear for the day and lots of thoughts go through our heads like: Where am I going? Who am I going to see? By the time we decide on an outfit at least a minor part of it is based on the image that you would like to present.

Goffman is cynical if you look at the way he generalises his ideas about people but his theories do make a lot of sense. As I read the book, examples from everyday life come to mind which just goes to show that Goffman's theories do exist.

2009-08-30T14:03:00.001-07:00

Professor Jackson left us with an interesting question during our last discussion...

"Is Goffman a cynic?"

It's hard to say what Goffman's intentions were while writing The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, but I think there are definitely some cynical aspects to him and some aspects that aren't as cynical.

Goffman definitely generalizes about different classes of people and talks about them as if a certain behavior is common among all the people in that specific group. For instance, he brings up the men vs. women example throughout the book and although the book was written in the 50's, it seems as though he has something against women. He talks a lot about how women put up a front with men, sometimes acting dumb or asking for help when they really don't need it. In this way, I think Goffman can be seen as a cynic because he puts women in a negative light and generalizes about their behavior. I'm sure not all women in the 50's behaved in the same way.

However, although he does generalize about women, I think he brings up a good point. There are definitely women out there who put up a certain front to be viewed in a specific way. I saw it all the time in high school and I still see it today. Some women, in search for attention, do put up a front that will attract this kind of attention. In this way, Goffman is simply commenting on what he's experienced and may not mean it in a cynical way.

I don't think I really think Goffman is either cynical or not cynical. Depending on how you view the way he writes, it can be taken either way. I think I am still a little torn in how to interpret his writing. A lot of the times, it's the intial shock what what he says that makes me think he's cynical, but if i take a step back and ask why Goffman wrote a particular point, it sometimes seems less cynical and more a reflection of what he's observed.

Reflection: "Why do you think Don Octavio DeFlores is Dr. Mickler?"

2009-08-30T10:46:00.001-07:00

The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life was an interesting book to read, seeing as how we are newly moved-in freshmen with the obvious desire to make friends and be accepted. I thought that most of Goffman's points were right on track, as embarrassingly revealing as they may have been. Take it from someone who overthinks everything, I don't think there was much I hadn't already reflected upon myself in this book. Maintaining a mask can be crucial sometimes.

Comparing Goffman's ideas to these first couple of weeks of school, I think a lot of the fronts that people maintain comes from the insecurity of a new environment. When you don't know people, you don't know which mask to put on, and that's part of the fear. You don't want to accidentally offend someone. But the more you get to know people, the more you know how these new people will react to the things you say and do. I see it less as a performance, and more like trial and error.

We watched the movie Don Juan DeMarco last night, which, to our dismay, we related back to Goffman. Don Juan (Johnny Depp) has two very distinct masks. One, that he is the world's greatest lover, and the other, that he is an obsessive suicidal man. As the movie progresses and Don Juan recounts his tale to Dr. Mickler (Marlon Brando), it becomes more and more difficult to discern between which story is the truth: Is he a great romancer or a schizophrenic patient?

While this is an obviously caricatured example of putting on a mask (in Don Juan's case, both literally and symbolically), it asserts the point that we put on masks to suit our needs, and in some cases, to protect ourselves. As Don Juan states, seeing everything for just how it is, is an "unimaginative way of looking at the situation."

Hopefully no one has masks as drastic as Don Juan's, but everyone has contradicting masks to a certain extent. I can relate from experience that in high school I had teachers that I would be casual and talkative to, and others with whom I only spoke very seriously. I had friends that I would go to the Nutcracker with, and friends that I would go to the playground with. These fronts are all a part of me, but they certainlly can't be displayed at the same time.

Waiting for Goffman

2009-08-29T22:51:00.000-07:00

Is Goffman a cynic? Of course, most realists are, however, the extent to which this cynicism appears callous derives from the nature of writing a persuasive book. A funeral, a wedding, and a birthday party are all performances to a certain extent, even those who are the "actors" would likely concede this point. However, the performance aspect, that which portrays the actors' love for their deceased friend, married couple, or aging relative, is only part of a larger celebration of life or selfless expression of love that is inherent in the human psyche.

It is possible that I misunderstand Goffman to some extent, but for every person who goes to a funeral or other event of mourning or celebration, there are at least to driving forces to their attendance and interaction. The first, though not necessarily the most important, is Goffman's theory of presenting a social front of mourning, love, or happiness to show those around your care for the soul in question. However, the stronger force at work here is a more pure one; it is the innate human will to be caring, and hence to visit the deceased, celebrate with the wedded, and acknowledge the passage of time along with aging companions. This personal desire to do good, even if no one is watching, is something that Goffman overlooks (though social Darwinist theorists have often struggled with it).

So there is something rather cynical about how Goffman presents his material, but, as I stated before, he has a reason: in writing a persuasive piece, it is not his prerogative, but rather that of the reader, to study the alternatives to his theories that are not in direct conflict. As Goffman has not mentioned what I have earlier, neither has he exactly refuted it. The cynicism of human nature lies in a certain degree of absence in discussion thereabout.

Funerals and Thespians

2009-08-25T22:48:00.000-07:00

Is Goffman's treatment of this and other social occasions revealing, or disrespectful?

In my current sleep-deprived state, I am more than usually inclined to be terribly offended by Goffman's implication that a funeral is no more than a performance, however, I feel that, in this case especially, he is more revealing than disrespectful.

As Goffman has said himself, a truly memorable and believable performance is better staged by an actor slightly detached from what is happening, so as to gain perspective. The funeral director, in this case, would make a perfect candidate. He is professional, having presented and mourned over the deceased so consistently, and is therefore capable of presenting his grief in a way that the true mourners would find most acceptable.

Being someone who seldom expresses grief on a highly visible scale, I can relate to the struggles faced by both family and institution in giving the deceased the funeral that he or she deserves. Serving as a pall bearer for my grandmother's funeral with little idea of what was actually passing, I simply attempted to act as the other family members and friends expected me to: I kept silent and with downcast eyes. Christian and societal prerequisites had already eliminated any potential for organic mourning or what could be considered inappropriate jubilance in the potential celebration of an extraordinary life. Therefore, these expectations and prerequisites had already transformed the original mourning into the monotonous ceremony that society guarantees will bring closure. In short, it was already a performance.

Though I would never hint at it at a funeral, I believe that Goffman, through the most sensitive media at his disposal, has made a startling revelation in relation to the inner workings of funerals. What is suggested is not as insensitive as it initially appears, but is, in fact, the only viable option for the mourners and funeral director to create closure for the deceased in a socially acceptable way.

Afterthought:

Other examples that strengthen Goffman's view can be found in celebrity funerals and more ritual-based funerals found in Chinese and other cultures. The extremes of performace and flare, which does not serve to return any vivacity to the deceased or comfort to his/her family, can be clearly discerned as a performance to gain the acceptance and support of the more general public.

Stone me if you want, but I think that Ronald Reagan's funeral is the single biggest modern example of this idea:

Six Feet Under .... My thoughts on funerals

2009-08-25T22:00:00.000-07:00

My first blog post EVER! =)

http://profptj.blogspot.com/

After reading some of the blogs on other groups, I realised that many people think that Goffman is being quite disrespectful. I guess that technically it is a bit depressing to think that people do stage funerals but I've seen it happen.

I've been singing in a church choir for many years and we've been asked to sing for lots of funerals and weddings. My mother actually doesn't like weddings because of how they seem to be like performances and I think some funerals tend to be like that as well.

Our choir members usually don't know the family well, so when we arrive at the church I would put on a sort of passive expression because you don't want to look too happy. So in a way, my choir is part of the performance. I think this applies to most of the people who are attending the funeral.

If we look at the ones who are mourning the loss of their friend/relative, they sometimes put on a show as well. People become so concerned with the impression they leave on the guests that they come up with a perfect program. This is evident in the eulogies which are pre-written and usually only comment on the deceased person's good attributes. I do not mean to say that the family member's are not genuinely mourning the loss of a relative but the point I am trying to make is that they do in fact end up putting on a show for the crowd, whether they know it or not.

I compare Goffman's theory of the group performance to most weddings. Weddings are lovely but nearly all are staged. The couple picks a special Bible reading (if it's a religious wedding), the best outfits, flowers and some even invent their own traditions.

I hope you enjoy this example =) I know I did!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

So overall I think that Goffman knows what he's talking about and even though his theory might

not apply to a funeral you've been to.... that event is probably the exception and not the rule.

Funerals as performances

2009-08-25T18:48:00.000-07:00

Last year I lost my grandfather to Alzheimer's disease, and it became the first funeral I had ever been to. Looking around, everyone was crying, myself included. The way in which Goffman describes the funeral as a performance isn't necessarily offensive, but I don't think it's accurate. When I think of a performance, I think of people acting and I don't believe anyone at this particular funeral was acting. Their emotions were real and involuntary. He also mentions the deceased person as "the star of the show". This comment does sound a bit offensive because it makes the fact that the person is dead almost a positive thing. The "star of the show" is dead, so that should be a bad thing. How can someone who is dead even be the star of a show?

Question 1 - On Goffman's Funerals and Tuxedos at Football Games

2009-08-25T18:12:00.000-07:00

You can't walk into a funeral laughing. You just don't do that.

There's no disrespect in the truth: The idea of a funeral being a performance is, for the most part, true (How many times do you hear people say "I'm so sorry for your loss"?). Although no one really knows how to act at a funeral, which is why it seems so scripted. Except for the immediate family/friends, people are sad but not sad enough. Because it's sort of like a double edged sword: You can't be more sad than the people who knew the deceased better than you, but you can't just act like it's ok. Most people really are sad when someone dies. It's not their feelings and intentions that are performed and forced, but their actions. People say "I'm so sorry for your loss" because they don't know what else is appropriate to say.

I've lost grandparents, and been to funerals where I couldn't hold it together, but I also remember one weird night when I was younger. My dad broke the news to me that my great uncle (whom I had never known particularly well) had passed away. Still--and I remember this exactly--my first thought was, immediately, "Cry." And then I sobbed. I didn't even really know him, but I felt like it was the right thing to do.

I think for most occasions where many people are coming together for an organized event, there's a certain air that's meant to be maintained. Maybe it's in the fact that it's organized, and therefore actions are organized, too. But who can argue that everyone at a wedding should be happy and celebrating? That funerals are for mourning and not cynicism, speeches are formal and attentive, and sporting events are loud and rowdy? No one wants to see someone angry and upset at a wedding, and no one wants to see a tuxedo at a football game.